The phone-hacking scandal and the dangers of "campaign finance reform."

[Dreadnaught]

Well this was provocative, I honestly am not sure what I think. But I think there is a point here about how restrictions on expression chance the balance of power in society.

BEST OF THE WEB TODAY | JULY 19, 2011

Power and the Press
The phone-hacking scandal and the dangers of "campaign finance reform."

By JAMES TARANTO

On this side of the Atlantic, most of the commentary about the News of the World phone-hacking scandal has consisted in an outpouring of left-wing ressentiment against News Corp.'s American properties, which have nothing to do with the scandal, for not hewing to the liberal-left pieties of the so-called mainstream media.

The best distillation of this attitude came from The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg last week: "In terms of its net impact on human welfare, News of the World has been the least evil of Rupert Murdoch's three-cornered Axis of Evil, the other two being the Fox News Network and the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal."

This sort of demonization of dissent is common enough to be tiresome and is of a piece with the deplorable and unsuccessful effort (in which Hertzberg participated) to scapegoat conservative media figures for the attempted murder of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

In England, however, the complaint about Murdoch is not merely that he supports "evil" points of view but that he exercises actual power, because the press plays a larger and more direct role in politics there than in the U.S. In all this there is a warning to Americans, to which the Financial Times's Clive Crook perhaps unwittingly alluded in an interview with NPR's Scott Simon the other day (hat tip: Newsbusters.org):

Crook: An important aspect of this story in Britain is the close relationship between the newspaper business, Rupert Murdoch's business, and leading politicians--not just the Tories, though the current prime minister is very embarrassed by this.

Simon: Yeah.

Crook: But Labour is just the same, all the parties are just the same. They have to get on with the newspapers. And why is that? I think it's interesting that they have to because Britain has largely succeeded in getting money out of politics, something many Americans would like to do here. The consequence of doing that is that the newspapers become incredibly important and you have to have them in your pocket if you're going to do well.

"Getting money out of politics"--that is, imposing governmental restrictions on political speech--is a cause that many American newspapers have championed. (The Journal is a notable exception.) The McCain-Feingold law's unconstitutional ban on corporate political speech included an exemption for "media corporations," so that while it was in effect, those corporations had an effective monopoly, as in Britain.

The complaint in Britain now is that the press has too much power, and it turns out that media organizations--being composed, like other organizations, of human beings--are susceptible to corruption. In response have come calls, including from Prime Minister David Cameron, for more government regulation of the press.

In England we are seeing the Kagan Principle play itself out. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some restrictions on political speech in the name of preventing corruption. In a dissenting opinion last month in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom PAC v. Bennett, Justice Elena Kagan implied that those measures have proved insufficient, and argued that the court therefore should uphold more-restrictive measures.

Kagan was not yet on the court last year when the justices held, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that nonmedia corporations do have freedom of speech, but one may safely assume she would have voted with the dissenters. Both that case and last month's were 5-4 rulings. A switch of a single justice could open the door to a vast increase in government power over speech.

Would a Kagan-led majority stop short of approving restrictions on the press such as those Britain is now contemplating? One would hope America's strong First Amendment tradition would stand in the way. But that didn't stop four justices in Citizens United and Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and majorities in earlier cases, from upholding government censorship of political speech.

In dissenting from one of those earlier cases, McConnell v. FEC (2003), Justice Clarence Thomas warned that "the chilling endpoint of the Court's reasoning is not difficult to foresee: outright regulation of the press." It's hard to see how he was wrong, and it's not hard to imagine journalists--who, after all, are only human--joining in calls to regulate competitors they imagine to be "evil."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...297702652.html

Brittons: is your press "too large" a part of your civil society?

[Steely Glint]

Next Up: The Eurozone Crisis and the Dangers of Stem Cell Research.

[Ominous Gamer]

Why is to "too large" being used in place of corrupt, or even bias?

News is important, I wouldn't consider something like that getting to large; the more information the better. But corruption and bias is what would need checked. Just look at what has become of Fox News in the US.

[Dreadnaught]

Too large means the media in many respects defines civil society; other actors can't really influence things. There are few grass roots movements and organizations, especially if they are out of favor with the mores of the media.

[Ominous Gamer]

Too large means the media in many respects defines civil society; other actors can't really influence things. There are few grass roots movements and organizations, especially if they are out of favor with the mores of the media.

Yeah, I'm not seeing it, yet. News media has changed over the years, and a lot of the old power of "you read what I print" simply isn't there anymore. We still have the problem of people to easily favoriting certain outlets, but communications have improved to the point that the large scale media outlets can and do suffer if they fail to connect with public sentiment. Look at how the ratings of US media changed over the years, after all, you love bitching about CNN.

Now, I said yet because big media is still in the picture, and they do slip up from time to time and remind everyone of that fact. Murdock used to own MySpace (and took a steady stream of flak for favoring Fox content), and its still owned by a different media corp; and even Reddit is owned by a media empire.

[Dreadnaught]

This is an assertion of the situation in the UK. It's [arguably] not the same in Amerika at all, as we have grass-roots institutions, individual contributions and lobbying groups that can influence politics.

[Ominous Gamer]

I was unaware that the UK didn't have internet access, those reddit UK guys must be pissed.
Wonder how the situation was in the countries that got caught up in the riots. I can't picture the big media in those regions exactly promoting or enticing what happened.

[wiggin]

There are a lot of things I didn't buy about the article. First, does the connection really exist between campaign finance reform and a resurgent media? Second, is media really that much more entrenched in British politics than in the US? Third, doesn't the US constitution provide a backstop to keep 'slippery slopes' wrt media regulation from getting too bad (something that the Brits don't have)?

(I also think that the internet helps to dilute any power a few monolithic media companies might have...)

[CitizenCain]

Second, is media really that much more entrenched in British politics than in the US?

Seems that way. Every news publication over there is affiliated with a political party, and thus readership seems to be tightly correlated with party affiliation and how one votes.

Third, doesn't the US constitution provide a backstop to keep 'slippery slopes' wrt media regulation from getting too bad (something that the Brits don't have)?

Has that ever worked on any issue?

Our 2nd-amendment rights to armed [para-military] action against government tyranny has been reduced to the right to keep some, limited, regulated and monitored semi-automatic firearms in our homes as a defense against thieves.

The 4th amendment might as well just no exist for how the courts handle it... civil-asset forfeiture, police check points, government mandated molestation (or forced participation in poor-quality porn), etc... as if literally nothing can possibly qualify as an "unreasonable" search or seizure anymore. Apparently, it is not unreasonable to seize $130,000 from someone for simply having it, nor is it unreasonable to search a 6 year old's vagina for pipe bombs.

5 through 8 only apply unless you've been accused of terrorism, are a foreign national or have suffered abuse at the hands of the government, in which case you're just SOL, which you might be anyway, because it's all too trivial to ignore these amendments faster than you can say "state secrets" or cite SCOTUS decisions that directly conflict with the plain wording of the amendment in question. (Like how it's not double-jeopardy if different jurisdictions put you on trial for the same event.)

10's probably the most laughable of all, given that it defines a strictly limited federal government which is now a full quarter of nation's economy and injects itself into every detail of every person's private life, from the semantic minutia of how they store unused batteries to the type of orchid they grow or literature they collect.

...

Doesn't seem to me that the constitution's ever provided any kind of backstop or protection against government doing whatever the hell it wants, and I don't expect it to start now, particularly if a mob of populist morons pressure the government for more populism.

[Lewkowski]

are a foreign national

Why should the bill of rights apply to non-US citizens?

[CitizenCain]

It doesn't apply to citizens either, so your question is little more than irrelevant populist shit designed to prey on the xenophobic tendencies of the ignorant and stupid.

[Lewkowski]

I'm not arguing that the bill of rights has been watered down but being a US citizen does mean something.

[CitizenCain]

Right, I remember that part from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all American citizens are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Foreigners, on the other hand, were not endowed by their Creator with any Rights, and can go fuck themselves.

[Lewkowski]

Because the Deceleration of Independence is relevant to the constitution how?

[CitizenCain]

Because the Deceleration of Independence is relevant to the constitution how?

Exactly. Get back to us when you've figured that out, and we just might be able to have a meaningful discussion on the matter.

Speaking of that, though, how's progress coming on your previous assignment? You know, that advocating the execution of Jesus extravaganza?

[RandBlade]

Why should the bill of rights apply to non-US citizens?

Why shouldn't it? Where's the caveat in the bill of rights?

[Loki]

Right, I remember that part from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all American citizens are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Foreigners, on the other hand, were not endowed by their Creator with any Rights, and can go fuck themselves.

It didn't say "all propertied, white, citizen, male adults" either, but that's what it meant. We've got to where we are today but changing the interpretation of that clause.

[CitizenCain]

It didn't say "all propertied, white, citizen, male adults" either, but that's what it meant. We've got to where we are today but changing the interpretation of that clause.

Only white, propertied, citizen male adults paid taxes back then too, so a lot of the political disenfranchisement was predicated on the [not entirely unreasonable] idea that only people who pay for government should have a say in it.

I'm pretty sure it didn't mean that 18th century American cops were free to feel up minors or women without cause and toss them in jail for political speech...

[Loki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

[CitizenCain]

The second president outlawed treasonous speech (among other things), used it to imprison thousands of his political opponents, (mostly dove-ish citizens) and instead of being executed for it, was drummed out of office with the rest of his party in the following election? Pretty weak, there Loki. Goes to show just how useless our constitutional protections really are, but that's a general point, not something limited to non-citizens or non-whites or non-males (etc).

[Loki]

Read the second and third clauses of the Act. It was unpopular because of the fourth Sedition clause, not the Alien ones.

[CitizenCain]

I have, but I'm not sure how they support your implication.

What I see in these laws is that absolutely no one is protected by the constitution, and the best you can hope for after being unconstitutionally fucked for years is... nothing. Seems to square away perfectly with modern examples of people being destroyed by egregious acts of governmental criminality. If they're lucky, they're left to rebuild their lives with nothing, and if they're not, they're still rotting in prison while politicians and judges exercise astounding feats of semantic acrobatics to justify not letting them free.

[Dreadnaught]

I just find it very telling that a big part of the "scandal" in the UK was how close these tabloids were with major politicians. There aren't many countries where the shitty national rag has that much sway.

Interestingly, none of the Brits have really expressed a strong view on this. I'm really curious to hear their thoughts.