On Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain-Feingold.
Although it mostly pertains to restrictions on campaign donations by large groups, there’s an aspect of McCain-Feingold that controls the media.
The law prohibits companies, organizations and unions from purchasing political TV and radio advertisements 30 days before a primary, and 60 days before federal elections.
Why is it important for newspaper readers to take note? This may have an effect on the number of political advertisements you see in The Star. It also may have wider, future implications affecting a free press.
Take a look at Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissenting statements:
The chilling endpoint of the Court’s reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press. … Media corporations are influential. There is little doubt that the editorials and commentary they run can affect elections. What is to stop a future Congress from determining that the press is too influential,’ and that the appearance of corruption’ is significant when the media organizations endorse candidates ?
Also dissenting were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. All criticized the law, saying it hindered freedom of speech. But it was Thomas who picked at the chilling implications to the press.
Right now, newspapers have few limits on when and what kind of political advertising can run. Freedom-of-speech advocates applaud this. Those who believe mean-spirited ads do mislead surely want to pull in the reins.
A reader recently asked this very question, so I went to Steve Broas, vice president of advertising. Broas said The Star won’t publish political Post-It notes on the front page on Election Day itself. Otherwise, the paper is free to accept ads up to the election.
Broas foresees an effect on newspaper advertising under McCain-Feingold.
I have an expectation that we’d see an increase in that type of advertising, because we are not a broadcast entity, he said.
Trevor Potter, chairman of the Campaign Legal Center, agreed.
If (advertisers) have a message to get out and they can’t use broadcast media, they will at least look at using print media.
The Campaign Legal Center is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, pro-bono legal center in Washington.
An analysis in The New York Times also reported that campaign experts expected to see money that normally was spent on broadcast ads to be spent on other forms of influence, such as direct mail, phone banks and Internet sites.
Hard-edged ads do run in the press as well as on TV. The anti-Bush ad titled Misleader from the advocacy group MoveOn.org is one that is cited as an example of a political attack ad running on television. However, Misleader also has appeared in newspapers around the country The Star included.
There are two aspects of political speech that make for pertinent discussion here: paid advertising and unsponsored persuasive writing. Newspapers publish both. Under McCain-Feingold, only paid political broadcast ads get the ax within certain time periods near elections. But if you agree with Thomas, political newspaper ads and other kinds of persuasive writing are next on the chopping block.
Not everyone agrees with Thomas’ view.
I don’t see this being extended to print, said Jon Haden, a lawyer for Lathrop & Gage who was a journalist before becoming an attorney. There is recognition by the court that the reach of the broadcast media makes it a different animal than print.
Lathrop & Gage is The Star’s legal representative.
However, imagine Justice Thomas’ landscape, where the government can place limitations not just on advertising but on any kind of politically persuasive writing. That not only means editorials and columns but also something that hits readers at home letters to the editor.
Letters editor LaJean Keene is cautious on the issue.
Immediately, I think it’s not relevant to letters … But if the definition of what is paid political messages’ became a matter of discussion if this really got muddied, then that’s definitely a problem for readers.
She added that The Star didn’t knowingly publish canned rhetoric or form letters from professional advocacy groups, even if they’re signed by local individuals.
We try to weed out letters that aren’t the sincere opinions of local people, she said.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this subject.
