Re: [EL] WaPo op-ed on transparency
Sean,
You asked:
“I simply ask David Donnelly (whom I only single out because he's opined recently here on this topic): how many advertisements from ExxonMobil/Americans for Prosperity/Snidely Whiplash will he need to hear before he finally throws in the towel and agrees that the proposed budget cuts being suggested these days by Republicans are too timid, and what we really need to do is just put Rand Paul in charge of government spending and policy?”
I can’t imagine any practitioner targeting me with advertising. But I can imagine an organization running ads placing them so that they focus on swing or persuadable voters, and in doing so changing their opinions through that advertising.
What I’m puzzled by is snark masquerading as arguments. It’s April Fool’s day, but I’m not in the mood to joke about this. It’s not an academic debate for everyday Americans. There are real consequences to real people from the decisions made by elected officials elected in a dysfunction system. Consequences like the debt the government will still be wrestling with when my kids have kids; like the house a block from mine that used to be a family’s home but now, a layoff and a foreclosure later, it’s owned by Bank of America; like all the news stories we hear about factories closing while the corporate tax accountants find additional tax shelters; and so on.
The problems I see (and many Americans see) in our political system are not solved by disclosure, or Fair Elections, or any one policy on their own. And I don’t think they’re solved by policy, period. Participation — some of which can be incentivized through policy — must be part of the equation. Right now, though, too many Americans, don’t think that anyone’s listening.
DD
On 4/1/11 5:39 PM, "Sean Parnell" <sparnell@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
Cutting to Paul's final point, I think that what we have a refusal to give
credit to the idea that the government should be in the business of deciding
who's influence is 'due' or 'undue' and attempt to manage who may speak, to
whom, how often, in what medium, on what topic, and what content may be
conveyed.
Nobody's denying advertising is effective, the point of contention seems to
be over whether political speech at a certain volume/quantity becomes
coercion rather than persuasion. To which, I simply ask David Donnelly (whom
I only single out because he's opined recently here on this topic): how many
advertisements from ExxonMobil/Americans for Prosperity/Snidely Whiplash
will he need to hear before he finally throws in the towel and agrees that
the proposed budget cuts being suggested these days by Republicans are too
timid, and what we really need to do is just put Rand Paul in charge of
government spending and policy?
Also worth noting, the entire discussion seems to assume that only one side
is being heard by the public, something that is manifestly untrue. If one
really wants to talk about Hitler's ability to advance the "big lie," you
have to include the fact that tolerance of dissenting voices was not exactly
a hallmark of the Nazi regime. It wasn't just that Hitler employed really
effective propaganda techniques, it was that after a while it was illegal
for alternate views to be heard by the public.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
124 S. West Street, #201
Alexandria, VA 22310
(703) 894-6800 phone
(703) 894-6813 direct
(703) 894-6811 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu
[mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Lehto
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 5:01 PM
To: jon.roland@constitution.org
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] WaPo op-ed on transparency
An awful lot of people and corporations are wasting an awful lot of
money if repeated advertising (especially negative advertising) does
not have the "market"-shifting effects that are MORE than the "market"
share they would get if given, say, roughly equal time as would be
generally the case in a public debate between candidates.
Suggesting that one should give more credit to voters elides the
issue: Despite Hitler's despicable record, he spoke the truth when he
said "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it
will be believed." Hitler also is credited with: "By the skillful and
sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as
hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." Read more:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/adolf_hitler_2.html#ixzz1IJ6XRWa
O
The Germans have and had their fair share of intelligence (indeed
they were considered perhaps the most educated and civilized country
in Europe) and yet the power of propaganda was a very significant
force in mobilizing a misinformed "consent" at critical pre-WWII
moments. The literature of social psychology shows that once people
"buy in" to an idea, the chance of changing their minds, even when
presented with contrary information that ought to do so, is less than
20%.
But, if money, and the propaganda or repeated advertising that it
allows, does not have an undue market shifting effect, again, a lot of
people are wasting a lot of money, and we seem to be led inexorably to
racist or nationalist conclusions that countries that "misbehave" like
WWII Germany are full of people with sub-par intelligence.
What's happening here is a refusal to give credit to the genius, as it
were, of advertising and propaganda (which might be defined as
advertising one intensely disagrees with or sees as opinionated and
one-sided ... and many people will view as "propaganda" any given
political ad for the other side.)
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 4/1/11, Jon Roland <jon.roland@constitution.org> wrote:
> But so does any spokesman for a block of voters, known or unknown to other
> voters. The solution is for voters to seek out and support only candidates
> who are reluctant to serve and indifferent to getting re-elected.
>
> Political corruption begins with every voter who votes his pocketbook
> instead of for what's good for the country. There is little difference
> between the selling of his vote by an elected official and the selling of
> his vote by a voter, to whatever candidate promises him some benefit.
> - Jon Roland, speech during his campaign for Congress, 1974
>
>
> On 04/01/2011 03:14 PM, Joseph Birkenstock wrote:
>>
>> To clarify: I don't think the advertising itself is an undue influence on
>> voters; I think the payment for the advertising - especially when a
>> candidate/officeholder knows where it's coming from and his or her
>> constituents don't - creates a means of exerting an undue influence over
>> that candidate/officeholder.
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society http://constitution.org
> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law