That’s the title of an article in The New Republic. England apparently sharply constrains campaign spending (both by candidates and by advocacy groups that are acting independently of the candidates), so unsurprisingly this means dramatically greater power for newspapers. And equally unsurprisingly this is leading the author to call for still more restrictions, this time on newspapers.
To some, this situation may reveal the problem of campaign finance laws: By trying to prevent parties from spending large sums of money and stopping wealthy independent organizations from dominating the campaign, the relative voice of the newspapers is enhanced. But rather than admit that campaign finance laws are futile, one might also conclude that controls on campaign spending should be complemented by attempts to address media power.
The most obvious strategy in this regard is to limit the concentration of the media. Given the unrivalled capacity to engage in unrestrained electoral advocacy that comes with owning a newspaper, it is important that no single person or company be able to dominate the market. Others, by contrast, have called for the regulation of media content. Most of the content regulations being discussed at present are aimed at stopping invasions of privacy and preventing the acquisition of information through hacking and blagging. There have, however, been some calls that newspapers be required to cover political matters with due impartiality, as is required on UK television and radio. But even at the height of anti-Murdoch feeling, such a far-reaching measure seems very unlikely to be pursued….
[W]hile the robust political tradition of the UK press should not be sacrificed, it is time to think about how newspapers can better reflect a wide range of opinions and not give so much power to the proprietor.
Thanks to Paul Sherman (Institute for Justice’s Make No Law blog) for the pointer.
Martinned says:
I’m not sure if this is the argument I’d make, but I’d generally favour extra stringent merger control for banks and newspapers.
July 26, 2011, 7:05 amFloridan says:
Avoiding the “concentration of media” is a worthy goal, whether or not it has anything to do with campaign finance laws.
July 26, 2011, 7:09 amgeokstr says:
Are you also against the concentration of 95% of the media under one political ideology?
Thought not.
July 26, 2011, 9:05 amDan the Man says:
Actually, even by your own admission, this isn’t really true because the media is an “advocacy group” “acting independently of the candidates” and, as you said, their “campaign spending” is not constrained at all.
July 26, 2011, 9:17 amHouston Lawyer says:
The press hates competition. Restrictions on raising campaign funds increases the power of the press. Hence all the caterwauling about the first amendment rights of corporations, who might have a different point of view than the mainstream media.
July 26, 2011, 9:19 amAssistant Village Idiot says:
I think we might guess who the TNR writer is thinking of. But these things have a way of doubling back to punish unintended others. Constraining is such a mild-sounding word.
July 26, 2011, 9:22 amRhymes With Right says:
TRANSLATION: Ownership ought not bring with it the right to determine what viewpoints a newspaper takes — the government will make the editorial decisions, not the publisher.
Hey — its a model that has worked time and again in dictatorships around the world to muzzle the opposition.
July 26, 2011, 9:49 amCalderon says:
Very good example of a point I’ve made about campaign finance laws. Those laws do not level the playing fields, but simply make it more unequal and in different ways. If you “take money out of politics,” then you’re giving more power to incumbent politicians who become more difficult to defeat; the media, celebrities, public figures, and others who can get their message out without using money; those willing and able to provide unpaid volunteer work, such as college students and senior citizens; and so forth.
July 26, 2011, 10:09 amSarcastro says:
Nice! We shouldn’t just regulate media size, we should regulate viewpoint diversity as well! Some kind of fairness protocol…
The stupid marketplace is killing itself by supporting anti-market leftists, and we need to bomb it in order to save it!
July 26, 2011, 10:23 amMikalye says:
I’m not sure that the basic thrust of this is sound. Britain has some dozen daily national newspapers, plus a great many important local newspapers (for example the London Evening Standard has a circulation of 700,000). Plus there are several national broadcasters, including the BBC. While it is true that the newspaper op-ed pages do have a wide reach, I think it is simplistic to reach the conclusion that the newspapers have such power.
Yes, daily readers of the Guardian will read op-eds encouraging them to vote Labour (except at the last general election) and readers of the Telegraph will read op-eds telling them to vote Tory. However, those reading the Guardian were likely to vote Labour anyway, and similarly the Telegraph readership skews sharply Conservative.
Yes, the papers do have an outsize voice, but is it not clear that they have a deterministic voice. Further, while that is clearly undesirable, the British have made the choice, for better or worse, that that is a price worth paying for they get:
a) Much easier candidate recruitment. Being a candidate is not as grueling, for better or worse, than it is in the US.
b) Much, much, much, much cheaper campaigns. Which in theory provides a pile of cash that can be deployed into more productive pursuits and less of a requirement to produce rent-seeking restrictions to justify the cost of the donation.
c) A much shorter election campaign cycle.
Also of note here is Section 199A of the Electoral Act 1993, which criminalizes knowingly false statements during a campaign.
A winning candidate who is found to violate this law will lose his seat, which is what happened to former immigration minister Phil Woolas after the last general election (which to be fair was the first time this had happened for 99 years).
All of these are designed to produce a very different electoral cycle in the UK. I am not sure whether it is better or worse, but an argument can clearly be made either way. I get frustrated by those who argue that because the US has fewer restrictions on speech it makes for incredibly obviously better elections. I am not sure that is true. US elections may well be better. But that is not inherently obvious.
July 26, 2011, 10:53 amcurious says:
Prof. V, have you ever written on the media exemption in U.S. campaign finance law? If “press” is an activity that people do, and not a reified “thing” that the NYT is, then how can the NYT be exempt from laws that apply to Microsoft?
I recall that a few years ago the NRA considered buying a TV or radio station, triggering this issue.
Seems to me that the exemption is invalid, as it’s a form of licensing “valid media” from invalid. And once it goes, the whole house of cards tumbles down.
July 26, 2011, 10:54 amaeolius says:
It will be a lot easier for GB to correct the impediments to fair elections than it will for the US. Now that the Gang of Four on the SC has overthrown corporate election financing free and fair elections seem a thing of the past.
EV I would be gratified if you or another would discuss how the “personhood” of a corporation could and should be reasonably be extended to other areas of the law. Why can we now say that any distinction between the corp. and person is justified. What would imprisonment of a corporation mean. etc.
July 26, 2011, 12:22 pmJohn Schilling says:
Newspapers can be locally regulated, by those with a mind to do such things. They are also increasingly relics of centuries past (yes, I still read one regularly, but I also am increasingly a relic of a past century).
The question for the coming century is, how shall British Democracy survive if threatened by a powerful media magnate who lives overseas, holds foreign citizenship, and owns a fleet of direct-broadcast satellites. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
July 26, 2011, 12:29 pmMDT says:
The British press is mostly nationally available, which makes it very different from ours already. And it has all the diversity anyone could want.
I quote the invaluable newspaper summary from Yes, Prime Minister (transcription snarfed from Jamie Edwards’ blog, because I was too lazy to track down the book and retype it myself:
———————-
Hacker: Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country;
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.
————————-
Apart from the absence of the Independent, which last I was there was actually further left than the Guardian, believe it or not, that’s pretty accurate.
Since no one seems to have linked it yet, there’s a good discussion of this question chez Megan McArdle, here.
July 26, 2011, 12:39 pmtom beebe st louis says:
Before you doubt this plan to clean up campaign finance, which does now give us pre-bought congressmen, read the last line. It diminished the power of the press, and other groups to anoint a candidate. While first written to restrict the power of special interest groups, events in the UK indicate the media needs similar controls. (I’m usually against controls, so suggestions to modify this will be welcome.
TOM BEEBE’S AMENDMENT
(Commentary in {..}, not part of proposed Amendment}
No candidate for the Presidency or either house of Congress shall accept contributions in cash or in kind from any organization or group of persons for expenses incurred in a campaign for that office. All such contributions shall be made only by individual citizens who shall attest that the funds or other items of value are from their own resources and that they have not received, nor have they been promised, offsetting items of value from any other party in exchange for their contribution. The identity and extent of contributors to such campaigns shall be made public for a period of thirty days from receipt before being employed or used as collateral for a loan by such campaigns. Organizations of any type, {i.e. corporations, unions, gun rights advocates, environmental protection groups, even “Susie’s Flower Shop”, a theoretical small business cited in the Citizen’s United Case,} may, without restriction, expend money to advocate a position on any issue before or likely to come before the electorate insofar as no candidate’s name or description is included in their expressions of advocacy.
July 26, 2011, 3:38 pm{The intent of the above is to bring “transparency” to campaign financing by removing any group from the process whereby that group may conceal the identity of an individual contributor as well as limiting the influence of such groups or “special interests”. It further prevents an organization from making such contributions when an individual within that organization, such as a union member or corporation stockholder, may oppose the candidate. Considering the large equity position in certain corporations that the federal government has recently taken in response to the economic crises, this is particularly important in excluding such influence. The money from “special interest” groups will then go to promote that for which they exist, their “special interest”. The media will be directed to expositions on the issues facing the electorate, thus enhancing discussion and hopefully understanding of issues, bereft of personalities.
Michael W. Perry says:
The ultimate conclusion of this strange mindset are laws that make it illegal for anyone to talk about upcoming elections. Any other approach will inevitably give some, particularly the better looking and more articulate, an advantage.
July 26, 2011, 3:41 pmSteevo says:
Funny how the BBC hasn’t been mentioned yet. They control about 70% of media all the while with their sister-in-spirit Guardian condemning a Murdoch “monopoly”. They are also taxpayer funded. They are also quite multicultural, pro-EU, VERY pro global warming/change, anti-Israel and US (although Obama gets kudos or kid gloves). And only 2 rather wet Tories are on their board compared to dozens of Labour and Lib Dems.
July 26, 2011, 3:57 pmsubmandave says:
And we all have seen how well this worked in the last Presidential election…
July 26, 2011, 4:00 pmEric says:
b) Much, much, much, much cheaper campaigns. Which in theory provides a pile of cash that can be deployed into more productive pursuits and less of a requirement to produce rent-seeking restrictions to justify the cost of the donation.
July 26, 2011, 4:05 pmOh, I dunno. How much does a newspaper cost?
Mike K says:
I assume you include the New York Times as a corporation ?
Thought not.
July 26, 2011, 5:15 pmFloridan says:
I’m not sure where you get your “facts,” but all of the seven BBC channels put together account for 31.8 percent of television viewing shares in the UK. The next two broadcasters (ITV and Channel 4) have a greater combined audience. BBC Radio stations constitute about 20 percent of all the stations in the UK, although its actual listernship is probably a higher percentage than that. Furthermore, the BBC does not publish a newspaper.
So . . . 70 percent?
July 26, 2011, 5:18 pmJSchuler says:
Democracy gives people a voice in their government. Because of this fault, we need regulations to keep them from speaking out.
July 26, 2011, 5:20 pmSarcastro says:
Not intended as a factual statement.
July 26, 2011, 5:31 pmFrancisChalk says:
“. . . be required to cover political matters with due impartiality, as is required on UK television and radio.” You’ve got to be kidding, right? The BBC is the most partisan, deceitful and agenda driven major broadcasting organization in the world. Only a fool thinks the BBC reports anything but leftist/socialist propaganda whenever possible. They report just enough actual news (on issues that have little or no ideological element) to keep the masses, and apparently, dupes at The New Republic, satisfied that they are getting honest news. BBC stands for Big Bunch of Crap.
July 26, 2011, 6:12 pmSteevo says:
There are plenty of sources. I recently read ongoing discussion at Conservativehome.com where the 70% was argued with a number of stats and not just consideration of UK viewing/reading audience but global, in comparison to other Brit sources.
Here’s another…
“The three networks go head-to-head very rarely but every time this happens, the BBC always wins, and usually by margins of more than 4:1.”
“People always tend to go to the BBC by default – we instinctively opt for the familiar and that over-rides our desire to be open minded.”
http://www.thecommentator.com/index.php/article/149/the_bbc_continues_to_dominate_uk_media_but_the_royal_wedding_showed_things_maybe_changing
My point is they are dominant in comparison to Sky, The DailyMail etc… and, they are bent to the left which is even acknowledged by those who’ve made their profession there. And, they are taxpayer funded! – talk about a corrupted outcome. Unless of course, you are in agreement with their bent which is indeed agenda-driven ideological and to the left.
July 26, 2011, 6:21 pmMarc Malone says:
It is all a distraction from the real intent. If it is restricted in any way, then it creates power for those who get to decide how it is restricted and who gets restricted. It is about who gets to decide. There lies power.
Should there be some restrictions? Maybe. Corporations. Foreign governments. These would tilt the playing field dramatically. It would entice some to sell out. However, the moment you admit to some restrictions, you have the camel’s nose in the tent.
The only real solution for a free society is a moral people. An immoral people will embrace chicanery.
July 26, 2011, 6:27 pmmarkm says:
Someone who calls himself “Sarcastro” really ought to recognize someone else’s sarcasm:
July 26, 2011, 6:48 pmSteevo says:
The point is establishment media players have proven ulterior motives no less than non-media corporations and foreign governments. It certainly can be argued they intend to influence policy outcome just as much. So, the argument can be made if they are to be exempt from restrictions so should the others. If the others are to be restricted, so should they. They don’t stand apart as some special free speech beacon for a free society.
I’m just making a point in all this that we not delude ourselves because an organization is labeled “media”. I honestly don’t have the answer to a very significant problem.
July 26, 2011, 6:53 pmgeokstr says:
Markm, you really have to understand the rules here. Only leftlings are allowed to use sarcasm, ridicule, hyperbole, and humor, and only against the right. St Saul himself sayeth this unto them in his 5th pissalm: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” Failure to adhere to this dogma brings swift attack for heresy.
And Sarcastro is their patron saint. Since Sarcastro’s Little Brother, a worthy opponent for him, is not here often enough, the duty to counteract Sarcastro and his allies falls to the rest of us by default.
July 26, 2011, 9:18 pmCareless says:
I don’t recall which conspirator has (probably Volokh or Kerr), but yes, someone here has, and it’s been argued in posts here that “the press” includes even the use of the technology behind the press, IOW the 1st protects people using technology to distribute political advocacy.
(sorry if I screwed up the argument I’m thinking of)
July 26, 2011, 10:55 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Curious and Careless,
The paper is here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802229
July 27, 2011, 3:06 amteapartydoc says:
Eventually the regulations will take a populist turn where everyone gets a say: “OK, it’s your turn Barney. You’ve got five words.”
July 27, 2011, 7:15 amSarcastro says:
Word, geokstr. I’m not having fun, I’m doing the Work of the Party!
I wouldn’t mind being the patron saint of Internet political sarcasm, though.
Also, complaining about the leftist media while also insisting on the free market may seem contradictory to some, but that’s becuase they’ve been brainwashed by that logic thing the government schools teach.
July 27, 2011, 9:55 amUrso says:
Which is somewhat less impressive considering that England is smaller than 31 of the US states. Even if you add in Scotland and Wales it’d barely crack the top half.
July 27, 2011, 10:24 amMDT says:
Urso,
Well, of course. I didn’t say it was “impressive”; I said it was different. We just haven’t got the press environment that the UK does, where everyone pretty much has access to the top dozen papers and they all have a national readership at least as much as a local one.
I mean, what are our national dailies, anyway? NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USAToday? I can’t think of anything else that’s more than regional apart from IBD, whose readership is, shall we say, slender and specialized.
Show me a US state (hey, take CA, since it’s the biggest one, and I spent 25 years there, including several working as periodicals clerk for a large bookstore chain) where you could find more than three in-state dailies at any bookstore chain across the state. Show me any similar store in the UK where there weren’t at least eight UK dailies, guaranteed. CA’s population is, granted, only 2/3 the UK’s, and (as I said) we have national dailies run from several thousand miles away that have substantial readerships even out here. All the same, you guys have much the better situation. First, because no one makes any particular pretense to objectivity; and second, because the entire spectrum of views is available at any corner store. I like even the fact that most readers go out and buy the paper — as in, “here I am, and I want to read this.”
July 27, 2011, 6:33 pmrichard40 says:
If you are talking about regulating it through the gov, the cure is worse than the disease, since I do not want the gov deciding what is “fair” whether left or right. How about something far simpler. Anybody can spend any money they wish, to say whatever they wish, anywhere they wish, as long as its not libelous or obsene. Repeal all campaign finance, and any gov regulation of media, and have a real 1st amendment again.
July 28, 2011, 11:29 am