Favorite

Speak freely and hide behind a big stick 

I happen to have been in a rare position to witness up close the new political environment under this recently epic U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

I refer to the one saying corporations and special interest groups possess free speech rights and cannot have their campaign spending restricted.

It is not pretty. It is not fair. It is not right.

The problem isn't free speech. We're all for that. It's a lack of accountability for the speech. And it's an uneven playing field in regard to disclosure of the free speakers.

It's what Democrats tried to address last week in the U.S. Senate, and it's what Republicans filibustered to prevent.

My home-state example isn't partisan at all. It's within the Democratic Party. That goes to show that the issue transcends the ever-predictable polarization that, as always, paralyzed the Senate last week.

In Arkansas, an incumbent U.S. senator, a pro-business centrist Democrat, got opposed in the recent primary from the left by a candidate coaxed into the race and financially sustained in it by labor unions mad at the incumbent over card check and trade and health care.

What the candidates spent directly from funds raised under legal caps was almost incidental. What the candidates said was almost incidental.

Instead this defined the race: We saw saturating misleading attack ads on television against the incumbent by labor unions that identified themselves in their ads, and we saw saturating and misleading attack ads against the challenger by business groups that did not identify themselves in their ads.

The pervasive deceit in the rhetoric was indeed a problem. But that cut both ways.

What cut only one way, and posed the greater injustice, was in knowing, or not knowing, who was doing the deceiving.

Unions identified themselves in their unfair attacks on the incumbent, and we knew where unions got their money, meaning from dues-paying members.

On the other hand, the business attacks on the challenger came from front groups with pointless names, and we didn't know the identities of their underwriters, who almost assuredly were fewer in number and greater in investment size than union dues-payers.

So you had this utter outrage: Some mysterious outfit calling itself Americans for Job Security ran a stereotypically racist ad with actors from India thanking the challenger for bringing jobs to their country, based on his having served on the board of a high-tech venture that put a lot of jobs in America and a few jobs in India.

The best we could tell was that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rounded up some anonymous benefactors to call themselves by this meaningless name.

Racism, you see, is infinitely easier to execute when you're cloaked. It's such a tried and true concept — putting a hood over racism, I mean.

Republicans opposed the bill last week by saying it was unfair to exempt small donors, thus union dues-payers, from the disclosure that would apply to business donors.

But my experience is that we know explicitly who the unions are and implicitly where their money comes from. But we don't know who the business front groups are and where their money comes from.

Anyway, we've long relied on size thresholds in our requirements for individual disclosures of political contributions.

It's logical to allow a labor union to sponsor an ad without listing all the dues payers below $600 whose dues contributed to the placement of the ad. But it's fair and just to force the business front groups to list anybody anteing up more than $600.

Republicans complained that Democrats were trying to give themselves an advantage in November and were taking their eyes off the appropriate ball, meaning the economy.

Both charges were true. But neither charge changed the merit of the specific measure.

Beware of those who argue against one thing by invoking an entirely different thing.

In the end, what happened is that Republicans protected the secret advantage of big business donors in our politics.

Favorite

From the ArkTimes store

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by John Brummett

  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • Can we talk? Can we get anywhere?

    Dialogue is good. It would be even better if someone would venture off script every once in a while.
    • Sep 21, 2011
  • More »

Most Shared

  • ASU to reap $3.69 million from estate of Jim and Wanda Lee Vaughn

    Arkansas State University announced today plans for spending an expected $3.69 million gift in the final distribution of the estate of Jim and Wanda Lee Vaughn, who died in 2013 and 2015 respectively.
  • Bad health care bill, again

    Wait! Postpone tax reform and everything else for a while longer because the Senate is going to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act one more time before September ends and while it can do it with the votes of only 50 senators.
  • Sex on campus

    Look, the Great Campus Rape Crisis was mainly hype all along. What Vice President Joe Biden described as an epidemic of sexual violence sweeping American college campuses in 2011 was vastly overstated.

Latest in John Brummett

  • Gone to the DoG

    We're now longer carrying John Brummett's column in this space.
    • Oct 12, 2011
  • Obstruction is the preferred conservatism

    Is there greater conservative virtue in opposing federal health reform, period, or in saying it ought to be implemented locally instead of from Washington in the event we are unavoidably laden with it?
    • Oct 5, 2011
  • A fate not quite as bad as prison for Lu Hardin

    There is no crime in being overly and transparently solicitous for the purposes of aggrandizement and personal political advancement. That's simply acute neediness, a common and benign human frailty.
    • Sep 28, 2011
  • More »

Event Calendar

« »

September

S M T W T F S
  1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Most Viewed

  • Storm president

    It's undeniable that President Trump's public approval has improved since the moment Hurricane Harvey came ashore in Texas the last week of August; polls showed his popularity up by approximately 2 points.
  • Can't afford to gut ACA

    The Affordable Care Act was passed into law with the promise that it would make insurance affordable. Because of bipartisan leadership in Arkansas, we continue to strive to achieve that goal. While rhetoric abounds, it is important to understand the Arkansas experience.
  • Bad health care bill, again

    Wait! Postpone tax reform and everything else for a while longer because the Senate is going to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act one more time before September ends and while it can do it with the votes of only 50 senators.
  • Sex on campus

    Look, the Great Campus Rape Crisis was mainly hype all along. What Vice President Joe Biden described as an epidemic of sexual violence sweeping American college campuses in 2011 was vastly overstated.

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Bad health care bill, again

    • Its hard to tell what the GOP in Arkansas care about beyond making life worse…

    • on September 20, 2017
  • Re: Time for a coalition

    • I am very glad to see a lot of women running for government positions in…

    • on September 19, 2017
  • Re: Time for a coalition

    • Since Hillary's book has come out, the Hillary Bashers have starting ranting again. My thoughts:…

    • on September 19, 2017
 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation