Hmm…  As always, it’s at least as likely as not that I am missing the point, but even if this is one of those times I don’t think it’s for the reasons Brad lists below.  As I wrote in a later post, I’m not concerned about the influence of the advertising on the voters, and unlike Paul I don’t consider that kind of influence undue. 

I do think that selectively opaque funding of ads, where the sources of the funding are known to candidates & officeholders but not to the general public, do create opportunities for undue influence for those sources over those candidates & officeholders. 

Which I expect means I’m just missing yet a further and different point…

I think Joe misses the point. The question is not whether advertising has any effect, or whether that effect is trivial. Presumably it does, and at least often it is not.  I don’t know of anyone who has asserted that advertising has only a trivial effect on voting, and one reason I support a deregulated market is to increase accountability. So that is not the argument.

The argument is whether people can make their own decisions after hearing advertising and many different viewpoints without the guiding hand of government, and whether the “will of the people” is best measured before or after the advertising. Steve’s point, as I understand it, is that if you don’t trust voters to hear advertising and then decide what is in their own best interest, you’ve pretty much undercut the basis for self-government. Because people are not governing themselves if some higher authority is needed to monitor whether their judgments really reflect “their best interests” and to determine what they ought to hear, and how often. One can argue that voters (or at least some voters) would make better decisions if deprived of the information that comes from advertising, or if forced to gain the information in some other fashion, and this is, in the end, a fundamental position of those who would regulate on the basis set forth by Mr. Lehto.  The problem is that this puts the government in charge of deciding how the political debate will be conducted, and by whom.  And that seems fundamentally contrary to the idea of self-government, and to the First Amendment, and fundamentally unwise. 

On that I have to agree with Dan Polsby’s eloquent words from many years ago, “Almost every country in the world, including those behind the iron curtain, can display a constitution that guarantees freedom of expression to the people – to the extent, of course, that the people’s representatives deem proper. … [W]e can boast that our Constitution protects something far scarcer in history than that sort of freedom. And with the knowledge of the caliber of people who sometimes get their hands on our government, it is well that this is so.” Polsby recognizes here not merely that freedom to speak is a valuable part of personal autonomy (though it is), but also that an unregulated market is the best system for assuring freedom, good government, the “will of the people,” etc. The First Amendment is not merely about autonomy, it is about governance, and it is a considered solution to the long-term question of how to assure that accountability ultimately remains with the people.

Joe is correct – advertising can persuade people.  So can debates in the faculty lounge, and sometimes even posts on this listserve. It is because advertising can persuade that the idea of self-governance demands that people be allowed to speak and to hear.

This point about the influence of advertising on voters isn’t so binary, though, is it?  Since it really is clear that even “repeated advertising” and “propaganda” don’t actually eliminate the agency of each individual voter, or of voters generally, does it necessarily follow that advertising has no value at all, or none worth considering as a potential means of exerting undue influence on the candidate or officeholder in question?

Put differently: if dollars-driven advertising has only a trivial effect on voting and political accountability, why does every advocacy group, candidate, and officeholder anyone has ever seen or heard of act like it’s so important?

________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
One Thomas Circle, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 862-7836
www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock
*also admitted to practice in CA

This is absolutely wrong, Paul. 

Your premise is that repeat advertising obviates freewill and independent judgment.

Your point is an epistemological insult to men and women everywhere.

Your point, at bottom, even while you purport to propose the opposite, is that individual men and women are incapable of self-government.

Nothing could be more... well, I'll leave at erroneous.

Steve

--
Steve Hoersting
CENTER FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS
124 West Street South
Suite 201
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
SHoersting@campaignfreedom.org
www.campaignfreedom.org
(703) 894-6800 phone

<- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ->

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, 

we inform you that, unless specifically indicated otherwise, 

any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 

attachments) was not intended or written to be used, and 

cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related 

penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii)  promoting, 

marketing, or recommending to another party any tax-related 

matter addressed herein. 

This message is for the use of the intended recipient only.  It is

from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged and

confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient any disclosure,

copying, future distribution, or use of this communication is

prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please

advise us by return e-mail, or if you have received this communication

by fax advise us by telephone and delete/destroy the document.