[EL] ELB News and Commentary 3/24/12

[Paul Lehto]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, <JBoppjr at aol.com> wrote:

> **
> [...] So the profits of the corporate NYTimes is enhanced by adoption
> of the very campaign finance reforms they advocate.
>
> So at least we should agree, if we accept Tom's point, that the NYTimes
> should be banned from advocating campaign finance reform -- the adoption of
> which would enhance its profits.
>

Of course, the irony is that with the adoption of unlimited IEs, major
media outlets rake in the lion's share of that rather large pot of cash, as
well as the lion's share of campaign contributions in general.
Consequently, any positions taken that have the apparent effect of limiting
the size of gross election expenditures payable to media outlets are
significantly against the profit interests of major media outlets such as
the New York Times (and especially those of television).

A stronger argument than those identified so far in this thread would be
that we can not reasonably expect a robust discussion of campaign finance
reform in the major media, because they rake in so much of the campaign
cash no matter what the campaign finance laws and rules are.  The extent of
the editorializing in favor of campaign finance reform in the major media
is somewhat surprising, at least if we presume that such reforms would in
fact reduce the income of major media outlets, if adopted.

Paul Lehto, J.D.


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120324/1dfc146c/attachment.html>