I do not mean to imply that I favor an aggressive expansion of the campaign
finance laws--hardly. But for better or for worse, we have such laws, and
within them are some awkward exceptions--like the one for media
corporations. Eugene is quite right that sooner or later we face the
question of why candidate control matters more than control by the
candidate's closest supporter and donor. Like other such questions, the
answer is simply, we can only do what we can reasonably do. In my view, we
should the attempt to do the least compatible with mitigating glaring
inequities in the treatment of political actors, and a fair case can be made
that a broad exception for "media" produces such inequities. There is not
too much to be done about it, except to isolate the case that presents the
most intuitively plausible case for intervention: candidate control.

So consider the LA Times in the last gubnatorial election. Assume that a
memo from the editor is leaked and it directs reporters' time and  attention
to Arnold's past, closing with the words "We have to beat this guy, and we
have little time left to do it". And assume that the publisher is a
well-known friend and supporter of Gray Davis. Should there be a remedy for
Arnold? I don't think so.


If Davis owned the paper, and the memo reflects his insistence on this
coverage? Different case. Rational distinction? No, not in the pure sense,
but it is a distinction brought into focus by the desire to rationalize the
corporate spending prohibition in some way, while also avoiding free-ranging
policing of the press.