

Corporate campaign contributions: legal strategy - grellas
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202439434557&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=nw_20100125&kw=Risky%20Strategy%20Leads%20to%20Big%20High%20Court%20Win

======
grellas
This is neither here nor there but the article as I had posted it was recast
from its original title ("Risky Strategy Leads to Big Court Win," which I had
used) to one that is actually inaccurate (since the legal case involved what
might be called "issues advocacy" and not "corporate campaign contributions").
Just clarifying for anyone interested.

By the way, the interest of this piece lies not so much in its description of
the underlying legal case as it does in the human elements associated with it
- its theme might be summarized as "how does a government attorney so overplay
his hand - by vehemently asserting at oral argument that the law would render
illegal virtually all forms of traditional advocacy that an entity might use
in this context, e.g., books, pamphlets - that it transforms a little-known
case that should have been decided on narrow issues into a major decision that
explodes in the government's face?" _That_ is the real drama of what happened
here and it is interesting to observe this as a matter of legal strategy
regardless of what one thinks of the decision in the case itself.

------
rbanffy
"winningest attorney"?! Seriously?

But it's still interesting issue. While I agree that Freedom of expression is
more important than preventing parties interested in the outcome of an
election from creating publicity pieces that masquerade as documentaries,
maybe we should also consider scrutinizing such expressions closely as to
whether or not they should qualify as campaign donations or slander. Such
scrutiny should come fast, because the damage done cannot be easily reversed.

OTOH, group A interested in electing candidate B could create a "docuslander"
campaign against B in order to get candidate C punished.

It's a delicate and interesting issue.

~~~
anamax
> maybe we should also consider scrutinizing such expressions closely as to
> whether or not they should qualify as campaign donations or slander.

How about not? Or, how about we subject "news reports" to exactly the same
scrutiny? And, speaking of slander, how about campaigns themselves?

Almost every media outlet in the US is a corporation. It's absurd to argue
that GE (owner of NBC) should have unfettered political speech yet Home Depot
should not.

You remember GE - they're the folks lobbying for govt mandates for products
that they make. Remember that the next time you watch NBC.

~~~
rbanffy
I am perfectly fine with political ads that look like political ads. I am not
perfectly fine with political ads that pretend to be impartial depictions of
reality.

I can't watch NBC because my cable-TV doesn't carry it (I live in Brazil - for
English news, I have BBC, CNN, Bloomberg and - gulp - Fox News). Is it really
that bad?

~~~
anamax
> I am not perfectly fine with political ads that pretend to be impartial
> depictions of reality.

Let me guess - you think that documentaries are typically "reality". They're
not.

If you think that news is reality, you've never seen coverage for something
that you experienced personally.

That said, there is no objective line between political speech and truth. And,
more to the point, political speech is supposedly what the first amendment
protects. (In practice, the protections for porn are stronger but even there
the excuse is protecting political speech.)

~~~
rbanffy
There is a reasonable expectation that documentaries should be unbiased
depictions of whatever they happen to be about. When you set out to make a
documentary it's expected from you not to misrepresent what you know about the
subject matter.

I don't expect it to happen 100% of the time, but that's what separates good
journalism from Fox News (or NBC, according to you). I take all journalism
with a grain of salt, but I also expect journalists to at least try to
properly inform their audience. You know the saying: with great power comes
great responsibility.

~~~
anamax
> There is a reasonable expectation that documentaries should be unbiased
> depictions of whatever they happen to be about.

Since they're not, that expectation isn't reasonable.

More important, even if they're not distorting what they're showing, they're
choosing what to show, and that distorts.

> I also expect journalists to at least try to properly inform their audience.

Good for you. However, that's not how they actually behave.

And no, this is not specific to Fox or NBC. It's universal. Every source has a
point of view.

> You know the saying: with great power comes great responsibility.

Nice saying, but it's a hope, one that isn't actually true. Great power does
not imply anything more than great power. It doesn't, for example, imply
truthfulness.

