Why Oprah Winfrey for President may not be such a crazy idea

Sunday night, the entertainment elite gathered to celebrate themselves. Again.

They do this often because a broad swath of the public is always willing to tune in – apparently pretty people saying pretty things is an easy sell.

The gala du jour was the Golden Globes, the one where the Hollywood Foreign Press hands out trophies to television and movie types during a swanky dinner at a glitzy hotel. Events such as the Globes, the Oscars, the Grammys, and the Tonys don't vary much from year to year or from each other. However, occasionally, an award recipient or presenter has been known to add something relevant to a national discussion by veering from the usual script.

The 2018 Golden Globes may be remembered for something more significant; it may have served as the launching stage of a presidential candidate.

Depending on the climate of the times, many stars use award broadcasts to protest or show support for something. Some go it alone as Bette Davis did in 1936, wearing a dowdy costume from the set of “Housewife” instead of a ball gown to make a statement about the objectification of women. Katharine Hepburn followed Davis’ lead by appearing at the 1974 Oscars ceremony clad in dirty gardening clothes and clogs.

More often, the stars align. They coordinate the message, wearing red ribbons to bring attention to AIDS, blue ribbons to support civil rights and the ACLU, or pink ones to raise awareness for breast cancer. This year's Golden Globes attendees shunned colorful garb and wore black to speak out against the sexual harassment our country, at long last, has begun to find the courage to confront.

Women were front and center at the Beverly Hilton soiree last night. Barbara Streisand, the only woman to receive a Golden Globe for directing, was there. She won for directing “Yentl” in 1984. The often-unvarnished Frances McDormand accepted her globe for acting by standing up for women and saying, “Trust me: The women in this room tonight are not here for the food. We are here for the work.”

But the most poignant speech was delivered by industry icon Oprah Winfrey.

(Photo: Paul Drinkwater/AP)

Oprah (does she need a last name?) began her acceptance of the 2018 Cecil B. DeMille award for a lifetime of contributions by recalling how she felt watching Sidney Poitier receive his Oscar in 1964. Oprah told us how as a young girl sprawled on her mother’s linoleum kitchen floor in Milwaukee she watched a black man be the first to break through this particular wall of racism. We could sense this moment was one of the many that made Oprah the woman she is today.

Oprah spoke of women who stood firm to bring change in the world. She talked of unsung heroes and those who have taken their place in history books. Oprah addressed the importance of free speech and the crucial role of an independent and vigorous media. She challenged her listeners to be better people. Most significant, she oozed confidence and control. Oprah wanted us to see she could be trusted to hold the light high and that she was capable of pointing the way forward.

Oprah was not just performing; she was leading. She elevated her audience, revealing a new perspective of our nation’s horizon. She wanted people to feel a part of something larger than themselves. Oprah did not mention a candidacy, but few who watched could deny there was more to this than Hollywood showmanship.

At a time when the current occupant of the White House is so preoccupied with self, tweeting things such as “my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart,” Oprah reminded us America can be and should be something more than it is today. Our charge isn’t to make America Great again; our charge is to make America live up to the ideals we have yet to achieve.

It is possible the leader who will show the way to that bright new day may have taken the first steps walking to a podium in Hollywood last night. Crazier things have happened.

###

First published by The Des Moines Register. 

NBC News shows how not to atone for a mistake

NBC News chief medical correspondent Nancy Snyderman and her team were exposed to Ebola while reporting from Africa. Ashoka Mukpo, the team's cameraman, was infected with the disease and is now being treated in Omaha.

Upon their return to the United States, Snyderman and the rest of her crew told the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as state and local health officials, and, with great fanfare, NBC viewers that the entire team would voluntarily remain in isolation for three weeks.

News broke this week that Snyderman violated the self-imposed quarantine. Snyderman was spotted at a New Jersey restaurant on Oct. 9. It is unknown if she visited other public places.

Trying to get out in front of the story, NBC News and Snyderman issued a statement during the Monday broadcast. Now that we know it was the medical professional herself who disregarded public safety, Monday's statement calls into question NBC's judgment as much as it does its once highly respected medical expert.

The network news organization and its medical correspondent owed the public an apology for Snyderman's careless behavior. Instead, NBC and Snyderman issued a statement that failed to mention it was Snyderman who broke the quarantine and, more important, failed to disclose any details about how, when and where Snyderman went during her escape from quarantine.

Snyderman should have fessed up and taken responsibility. She did not and, for that, NBC and Snyderman should be ashamed. Snyderman put others at risk and Monday's NBC News statement makes it appear NBC is more concerned about preserving its reputation and that of its senior correspondent than reporting on the wrongdoing of one of its own.

Anchor Brian Williams read this statement on Monday: "While under voluntary quarantine guidelines, which called for our team to avoid public contact for 21 days, members of our group violated those guidelines and understand that our quarantine is now mandatory until 21 days have passed."

Snyderman said in a separate statement, "We remain healthy and our temperatures are normal. As a health professional, I know that we have no symptoms and pose no risk to the public, but I am deeply sorry for the concerns this episode caused. We are thrilled that Ashoka is getting better and our thoughts continue to be with the thousands affected by Ebola whose stories we all went to cover."

After learning of Snyderman's transgression last Friday, New Jersey health officials issued a mandatory quarantine for the NBC team of journalists that will be in effect until Oct. 22.

NBC News and Snyderman were less than forthcoming with the public. This is disappointing. When trying to earn back public trust after a mistake is made, organizations and those who work for them need to openly share facts and explain what is being done to prevent that trust from being broken again.

Instead, NBC News and Snyderman tried to distract the public from her role in the story. They owed viewers details about how the senior medical editor put her neighbors in danger. The apology needed to come from Snyderman. Instead it was made to sound that someone else on her team transgressed.

Moreover, Snyderman's claims that as a health professional she knows she poses no risk to others makes one wonder if the doctor first agreed to the 21-day quarantine out of concern for other's health or NBC News' ratings.

It is fair for us to expect better from a physician and a leading national news organization.

###

This entry was first published in the print edition of the Des Moines Register. 
Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 

HBO Drama The Newsroom Broadcasts Important Message

I confess I am enthralled with HBO’s The Newsroom. Aaron Sorkin, creator of The West Wing and screenwriter of The Social Network and Moneyball, has cooked up a delicious new drama. The Newsroom is a kind of behind-the-scenes look at the people who make a nightly cable-news program. It is a thinking show that I hope will cause viewers to question the sorry state of modern politics and the gloomier state of news reporting.

Jeff Daniels as Will McAvoy in HBO's The Newsroom

Let’s get the obvious complaint out of the way. The Newsroom’s network anchor (played by Jeff Daniels), his new executive producer (Emily Mortimer), the twenty-something’s of the newsroom staff (John Gallagher, Jr., Alison Pill, Thomas Sadoski, Olivia Munn, Dev Patel) and the boss (Sam Waterston) seem to lean to the political left. Incidentally, Jane Fonda is fantastic as the network chief. Yes, Daniels’s character claims to be a Republican who wants his party back from the Tea Party. But, the majority of political shots have been thrown by southpaws so far. Get over it. Nearly every newsroom I have ever visited has tilted left.

If you fixate on the direction from which the storyline emanates, you will entirely miss the point of the show.

A friend who scoffed at what he described as the morally superior, one-dimensional and altogether too well read Newsroom staff is failing to see why the show works. The show is not about the staff. It is about us, the American viewer.

This week, Sorkin’s recipe called for the juxtaposition of the people my friend described as morally superior leftists to an arguably equally morally superior Tea Party couple the Newsroom staff invited to be hammered on air by Daniels’ character. The result was a tasty bit of thought candy. The Newsroom tries to show how we Americans all-too-often fail to see through the theater of the made-for-commercial-television debate.

The show works because Daniels’ anchor preaches from on high about presenting the facts and then batters the show’s guests with his not-subtle-at-all opinions.

This show works not because people on one side of the political spectrum are painted as villains – this week it was the ultra-politically active and wealthy Koch brothers – and the other side morally superior heroes, but because the Newsroom shows in dramatic fashion how America’s politics and its news organizations are broken.

Sorkin’s concoction works because it makes people think. It isn’t written to allow the viewer to get inside the heads of the Newsroom characters and thereby see the world through Sorkin’s rose colored glasses; the characters are created to get inside the viewers’ heads causing us to consider whether we wear the blinders worn by too many Americans to keep from seeing the messy, incestuous state of modern politics and news.

American politics may not be irrevocably broken, but something is seriously amiss. The debate over which policies are best able to move the United States forward take a back seat to a devilish game played by a rich and powerful few singly interested in feathering their own nests. Making matters worse, the news industry has been corrupted by the same moneyed interests controlling the political parties.

The Newsroom is entertaining, but it is more than that. For those viewers able to put down their Republican vs. Democrat score sheets, the Newsroom should make them question the state of our nation. Allowing the degeneration of modern media to continue while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the consolidation of political power by a frighteningly small group of self-serving wealthy individuals is a formula for disaster.

Sorkin’s Newsroom makes for good viewing and even better food for thought.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Newt Gingrich is a Bully

Newt Gingrich is a smart guy and I have liked many things he has said over the years.  However, his willingness to throw democracy and the principles of good government under the wheels of his campaign bus as it swerves hard to the right is appalling.

Gingrich was in Iowa yesterday promoting his latest book and his potential presidential campaign.  Pushing the latest political hot-button, marriage, Gingrich said the integrity and authority of the system comes from the consent of the governed, “then the governed have indicated they don’t agree with this court … so I think they have any sense of integrity about protecting the court, they’ll step down.”

Wait.  What?

CHRISTOPHER GANNON/THE REGISTER

Gingrich’s statement is silly.   No, it is worse.  Gingrich has shown a reckless disregard for justice.  Having three separate and distinct branches of government provides an important balance.  The executive and legislative bodies are selected by regular and competitive elections.  These branches were meant to be responsive to the evolving priorities of the people.  Justice demands members of the Court consider the Constitution and laws of the land with a bit more distance from the influences of popular election.

Retention votes make sense.  The people should have the ability to remove judges they deem unfit for office, but judges should not be influenced to rule based on perceived popular opinion.

Gingrich’s statement is so outrageous it does not deserve comment, until you realize he could actually be a contender for the presidency.  Let’s deconstruct what he said.

First, Gingrich takes a huge leap in logic when he says voters would have tossed all of the Justices out had they been on the ballot.  He does not know that.  Polls indicate many of those voting “no” wanted to send a message.  If all of the justices were on the same ballot, it is fair to assume voters would have considered the potential chaos that could have ensued from the Supreme Court on down had all of the justices been tossed out.  A majority may not have voted “no” on the entire slate.  Balancing court continuity with the need for a public check is precisely why staggered terms for Justices were written into the Constitution.

Next, it is ludicrous to suggest this year’s vote should cause the remaining Justices to step down.  Following this flawed logic, all Republicans in the U.S. Senate who were not on the ballot should have resigned in 2008 to protect the integrity of Congress after the thumping their Party took that year.  Like Senators, Justices have terms that allow voters to consider a public servant’s entire record of service.  Had Gingrich resigned when he took a single vote in Congress that was unpopular, his career would have been considerably shorter.

A stable democracy demands a process of thoughtful consideration.   Voters have the opportunity to be heard from time to time, but that is different than knee-jerk mob rule.  Gingrich’s suggestion that Iowa’s remaining Supreme Court Justices step down looks less like democracy and more like a coup d’état where polls and the muscle of political groups substitute for guns and military strongmen.

Ejecting judges or forcing them to resign every time people disagree with a ruling will destroy a system designed to ensure each member of our society can find justice whether they have popular political support or not.

The Court acted in a legal manner and the marriage restriction was struck down.  Kicking Justices off the bench will not change that.  Democracy provides those who want sexually restrictive marriage a path to reverse the ruling.  They need to draft and pass laws and/or a constitutional amendment that withstand legal scrutiny.  That may be a painful and difficult task, but it is the way the process is supposed to work.

Replacing an independent judiciary with judges who will pander to win votes as Gingrich is should strike fear in all Iowans.  We all have a stake in preserving the ability of judges to do their jobs without being threatened by political bullies like Gingrich.

Justice prevails only if the people take a longer view than some guy who is singly focused on his fate in the next election.  Newt Gingrich may enjoy political racing, but he appears to not understand the fundamentals a stable and just society needs to survive.  He is wrong on this and he needs to steer his campaign vehicle in a different direction.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Changing the Rules of the Lobbying Game

Decrying the power lobbyists wield here and in Washington has become a national pastime for the political elite and occasional voter both.  When not playing golf, dining or hobnobbing at high-dollar fundraisers with lobbyists, many a powerful Republican and Democrat lawmaker have been known to give lofty speeches about limiting the lobbyist.

Financial disclosure laws, restrictions on gifts and many other acts have been passed to convince the public the lobbyist/policymaker relationship is being kept on the up and up.  However, if one has an important item pending before a lawmaking body, a good lobbyist remains essential.  Tongue in cheek, more than a few have suggested what the American public needs is our own lobbyist. They may be on to something.

Even though he is a lobbyist, I have always liked Marty Ryan.  When we have lunch, he generally eats dessert first because he feels the best part of the meal shouldn’t be ruined by the main course.  While he is a lobbyist and his eating habits are unconventional, don’t assume he is the self-indulgent, head-in-the clouds type.  Marty may be the only lobbyist in Des Moines who has longer-than-shoulder length grey hair and his interest appears to have little to do with accumulating power.  More important, he is doing something interesting .

Marty used to lobby for the Iowa wing of the American Civil Liberties Union.  He is passionate about civil liberties, protecting individual privacy, keeping the doors and records of government open, and a myriad of other issues.  After many years, he left the structure of the ACLU and started hunting a new way to make a difference.  This year he is going to be back at the Capitol, but his client list is going to be a bit different than most who prowl those halls.  Marty has launched an experiment which he hopes will allow him to lobby directly for people.  He will not work for an organization, a front-group for corporate interests or a coalition of entities.  For a modest fee, a few dollars actually, Marty tells me he will represent individuals by keeping them informed of activities on the Hill and giving them a voice during the Legislative Session.

I have no idea how this experiment will turn out and I am undecided whether I will be one of his subscribers, but I have to hand to him.  It took a guy who turns the table on lunch, to think of way to turn the table on the lobbying game.

The voters just suffered through a rough and tumble election season and most of us would like nothing better than to take a break from politics.  However, in just a few weeks, Congress and the General Assembly will be back at it again.  The difference is the real work begins now.  Voters decide who gets to sit in the seats of power, but the people need to make sure their voices are heard long after the voting booths are packed away.  It is nice to think that individuals could go about their busy lives knowing somebody was paying attention to the details without the wasted expense and meddling influence of a huge bureaucracy.  You may not support Marty’s issues and I am not trying to convince you to do so.  I just can’t help hoping his experiment is a success.  It is time somebody changed lobbying for the better.

Tonight, I am having dessert first.

###

(Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Sen. Bayh’s View from the Ivory Tower

U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) has announced he will not seek re-election. He has served the people of Indiana as their Secretary of State, their Governor and, since 1998, as Senator. Mr. Bayh has dedicated a major part of his life to public service. I salute him for that. However, his ivory tower announcement for walking away is a little hard to take.

In announcing his decision, Senator Bayh said, “for some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress — too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples’ business is not being done.”

If the rest of you will excuse me, I am going to address Senator Bayh directly at this point.

Congressional dysfunction is hardly a revelation, Senator. This institution’s failings are well known to many Americans out here in the real world. You say partisanship is the major obstacle in the way to accomplishing the business of the people. The petty politics of the parties is only part of the problem, sir. The bubble surrounding elected Washington was created not by parties, but by people primarily concerned with protecting self.

You wax on about the congenial era when your father served in the Senate and wish we could return to those simpler days. You talk as though some hard to detect virus infected the hallowed Senate Chamber destroying the civility which once dwelled there. Civility isn’t dead, Senator. It has been banished to the Capitol basement because so many of those who have been elected lack the courage to overlook partisan loyalty and do what is right. It is takes courage to criticize the Senate of which you are a part. It takes something less to criticize the Senate with a parting shot as you walk away.

Civility will return when members of Congress eschew partisanship WHILE they serve. I am happy you see the problem of partisanship now. I just wish you would have seen it sooner and done something to change the culture of Washington before throwing up your hands and leaving.

On CNN this weekend, Senator Bayh blamed “tribal” politics for the gridlock that is paralyzing Capitol Hill. He is right, to a certain extent. Americans need to treat politics a bit more seriously than the baseball fan who picks a team and pulls for it as it races for the league pennant. Civility will return to the body Mr. Bayh is leaving behind the day those who work there focus less on scoring points on the other team and spend more time doing the job at hand.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Learning from Illinois, How Not to Respond to a Delicate Question

As a communications professional, I have been a student and a practitioner of crisis management for many years. There are good examples of how to handle a crisis, David Letterman’s quick and complete disclosure of his infidelity and the scandal surrounding it. There are the bad, Tiger Woods (need I say more?). Preparing for a crisis and directing a communication strategy in times of trouble can be trying, but the rules are easy to understand. Mainly, your response should not make the situation worse. Scott Lee Cohen, the Democrat candidate for Illinois Lieutenant Governor, and his campaign have yet to grasp this concept.

In a statement that goes from bad to creepy, Cohen released to the media and posted to his website the following:

“I have no intention of stepping down or stepping aside. When the facts come to light, after my ex-wife and ex-girlfriend speak, the people of Illinois can decide, and I will listen to them directly. I am asking my ex-wife and ex-girlfriend to come forward and to talk with the media. There are questions, and I will provide all answers honestly and openly. I only ask for time to do the interviews. 2005 was a difficult time in my life. I was going through a divorce, and I started running with a fast group. I was in a tumultuous relationship with the woman I was dating. We had a fight, but I never touched her. She called the police, however, she never came to court, and the charges were dismissed. I realized this relationship was not healthy, I ended it, and we parted amicably.”

OK, while I would have worded it differently, I will forgive him the first sentence. He wants to show his resolve. However, like Nick Nolte descending a mountain highway following an all night bender the statement careens downhill after that.

Rule #1 in crisis communication is that you present the facts before others can spin them to their favor. Cohen chooses a different route. He tells us the facts will be revealed later by two others, his ex-wife and his ex-girlfriend. Granted, there are less desirable people to whom a politician may want to refer to in a statement (his drug dealer and his bookie come to mind), but making his ex’s character witnesses is a bit unusual.

Rule #2, time is of the essence. Cohen acknowledges there are questions and says he is willing to respond to them, but he wants time to do the interviews. What is he waiting for? Does he need to get his hair done? Your future hangs in the balance. Clear the schedule and address the crisis immediately.

Rule #3, define the situation and address it head-on. Cohen says that 2005 was a difficult time for him. He was going through a divorce. Most can understand this. Plus, this isn’t 1958. The electorate is more forgiving of divorced candidates than they once were. But, Cohen steps on the throttle on his runaway car by saying he ran with a “fast group.” Wait. What? Who are you, Paris Hilton? Voters usually shy away from recent heavy partiers. Further, Cohen was ending his “tumultuous relationship” with the girlfriend while simultaneously getting a divorce. I am not sure this is the type of multi-tasking the electorate is seeking from elected officials. You don’t dispel the arrest crisis by opening up a whole new set of questions about your wild days way back in 2005.

Rule #4, saying your accuser failed to show for a court appearance is different than proclaiming your innocence.

Rule #5, Cohen calls on the ex-wife and the ex-girlfriend to step forward and answer the public’s questions. An odd move, since he is the one seeking votes. If he is looking for supportive comments, it may not have helped to portray the relationship with the girlfriend from the fast crowd as unhealthy. It is hard to make the leap from tumultuous and unhealthy to honest and reputable. It may be just me, but Cohen seems to have painted a fairly unfavorable picture of a woman he is hoping will help exonerate him.

I am told Illinois politics are different, so maybe Cohen will weather this storm. For other politicians who may have to explain a domestic dispute arrest with a girlfriend while going through a divorce, I would suggest you use the Cohen approach as a what not to do guide.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Supreme Court Ruling Renews Fight Over Coporate Money in Politics

Depending on your point of view, Thursday’s United States Supreme Court ruling reversed somewhere between 20 and 200 years of precedent. The divided Court struck down limits on political spending by businesses, unions and other organizations. The ruling gives these groups essentially the same ability as individuals to contribute and spend money in the political arena. In short, this is a game changer. Union and corporate money may flood into the political arena and and many are rightly concerned about this. However, protecting freedom of speech cannot be done by imposing complicated rules about who speaks and when.

Political hacks, pundits and constitutional scholars will be debating, debunking, defending and decrying this ruling for many years to come. The ruling was about as fascinating a read as a legal decision can be. The majority and the minority conduct a fascinating back and forth on the some 180 pages. Clearly, passions ran high. But, I am a geek and this is a blog, so let me try to boil this down into something closer to blog bites before I lose everyone’s interest.

The Case
A political group, Citizens United, made a movie in 2008 about then-Senator Hillary Clinton. Let’s just say it did not paint a very flattering picture of the presidential candidate. Citizens United wanted to play the movie on cable pay-per-view channels and advertise the showing during the presidential primary season. Most of the contributors to Citizens United were individuals, but some were business corporations. Rules established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the campaign finance law known as McCain-Feingold prohibit corporations from funding political activities in the period leading up to primary elections. Citizens United filed suit and two years later the Supreme Court finally got and ruled on the case.

The Ruling
The Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 ruling reversed the judgment of the District Court with respect to the constitutionality of restrictions on corporate expenditures on political messages. It also upheld the requirement for disclaimer and disclosure statements, the “who paid for this” ad stuff. The ruling did not address nor change limitations on corporations donating directly to a candidate. However, one could assume that this court might do so, if the right case came before them. The question of corporate to candidate contributions simply was not asked by the parties in the case.

The majority of the Court feels that free speech is impinged when some groups are restricted in participating and others are not. As of Thursday, corporations, unions and for-profit groups may fund advertisements and activities supporting candidates and issues whenever they wish. They may also donate to organizations who engage in such activity.

The Disagreement
The four Justices in the minority and many others fear this ruling gives corporations a louder and larger voice in politics. They argue that individuals were granted the constitutional right to free speech, not the corporate entities individuals form. All who like to look back to the days of our country’s founding have to admit the Framers of the Constitution clearly did not anticipate corporations as they are today, nor could they have envisioned modern communication tools, therein lies the starting point of this disagreement.

The Blank Stare and Judicial Activism
The Court Opinion focuses on stare decisis, a legal principle by which judges are obligated to obey the precedents established by prior decision. I will not dwell on this, because this is a blog after all, but let me say that both sides contend that 200 years of case law is on their side. The majority says cases ruled upon and laws passed in the last twenty years, ignored legal precedent. The minority says the majority ignored more than 100 years of precedent and, this is important, improperly overturned a second ruling that the parties involved in the case had agreed was not a part of this particular case.

The majority overturned the 20+ year old ruling, because they say it had been improper. The minority claims the majority should not have done this. I will leave this debate for the constitutional scholars. Suffice it to say that had the issue been gay marriage and a left leaning majority had reached back to overturn a previous ruling without being asked to do so by the parties involved, accusations from the right of judicial activism and legislating from the bench would be deafening.

The Good
The Court Opinion says that the complex rules, laws and regulations determining the who and how of campaign funding stifles free speech. The exchange of viewpoints is quieted out of a fear of being sued over complex rules. The Opinion states: “As additional rules are created for regulating political speech, any speech arguably within their reach is chilled. Campaign finance regulations now impose ‘unique and 18 complex rules’ on ‘71 distinct entities.’ These entities are subject to separate rules for 33 different types of political speech. The FEC has adopted 568 pages of regulations, 1,278 pages of explanations and justifications for those regulations, and 1,771 advisory opinions since 1975.” It goes on to say that after another previous Court ruling regarding political advocacy, “the FEC adopted a two-part, 11-factor balancing test to implement” the ruling.

There are too many rules and people sometimes choose not to donate or make political statements because they may be challenged on their right to do so. That is bad and the ruling makes it possible to fix this.

The Opinion makes an excellent point about corporations involved in the news business. Freedom of the press was a clear intent of the Framers. In order to restrict corporate political activity, exemptions have to be made for those corporations involved in the media. This gives one company rights another does not have and that is unfair. Laws that permit a company that owns a newspaper to promote a candidate or issue whenever and however they like, but restrict a non-media company from doing the same are inherently biased.

The Opinion also speaks to the decline of print and broadcast media and the rise of the Internet and new forms of communication. The line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues has become blurred.

People were granted free speech by the Constitution. People create and control corporations as a way to pool resources to better participate in the marketplace and to coordinate their collective efforts. The complex laws limiting certain corporations from political activities intruded on free speech, not the free speech of these corporations, but of the free speech of the people who own the legal entity.

The FEC, Congress and the States need to go back to the drawing board and pass clear rules, regulations and laws about political contributions, spending and financial reporting. The Opinion is clear and correct; laws that restrict one group and create a convoluted set of tests to determine who can participate and when chill free speech. An answer may be found in limiting what corporations can do, not on who funds political activity, but I will get to that.

The Bad
Some corporations have vast resources that could be used to drown out the voices of individuals by paying to clog the airwaves, Internet, newspapers and every other forms of communication with political messages. This is concerning.

Yesterday I watched a newscast which reported how the American people have come together to donate $355 million to relief efforts in Haiti. The story was followed by another about Goldman Sachs’ announcement that it would pay nearly $17 billion in bonuses to employees this year and give $500 million to charities. All of the American people together have yet to match what this one company could do at this moment, if it so chose, for the people of Haiti in this time of need. Now, imagine the power corporate giants could unleash in an election cycle if they wanted to and their shareholders would let them.

The Path Ahead
Corporations are legal entities formed and governed by laws. Unlike an individual, they have no inalienable rights. Restricting corporate participation in politics would take a restructuring of the laws which define and give life to corporations. Government could attempt to strip certain rights from corporations and reserve them solely for individuals, but doing this will be difficult without hindering the ability of some corporations to grow and compete in the marketplace. More important, what is at stake are not the rights of corporations, but the rights of the people who form them. It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two.

The Supreme Court ruled that Citizens United should not have been barred from advertising and showing its political movie because it had taken some corporate money. According to the Opinion, Citizens United had been denied freedom of speech. For the last hundred years government has tried to restrict how money flows into politics. It may be time for those who wish to limit corporate money in politics to change the focus from how money enters the political realm to how and on what corporations spend their resources. The solution President Obama and those who disagree with the Supreme Court seek may lie in the legal structure and definition of corporations, not the creation of rules that interfere with the people’s right to free speech. No matter what avenue they choose, we have seen that the majority on this Court appears inclined to rule in favor of a one size-fits-all ruling for free speech.

The rules changed greatly on Thursday. The public, candidates for office and government are facing a newly unleashed political force and there will be more money in play than ever before. Above all else, the Court sent a message that numerous and complicated rules alone have the capacity to chill free speech. Lawmakers need keep two things in mind when drafting new campaign finance laws; make them easy to interpret and administer, and make it so the laws apply equally to all groups.

Note: OK, this post was three times longer than a blog should be. For those who did not nod off and stayed with me, thank you. I promise to not be so long winded again. Well, at least for a while.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Partisan Rancor Places Common Good in Harm’s Way

Partisan wrangling has long been a part of the American landscape. Maybe it is natural, but it looks more and more to me like a blight threatening the healthier parts of democracy.

Today, Senator John McCain led his fellow Republican Senators in criticizing the Obama administration for deciding to let the federal courts charge the man accused of trying to bring down a passenger jet bound for Detroit on Christmas Day. I am assuming Senator McCain would prefer the accused be hauled off to Guantanamo without a trial. McCain called the decision to prosecute suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian courts a “terrible, terrible mistake.”

Justice served is never a mistake, Senator.

Listen, I want the bomber to pay a price for his crime. Like Senator McCain, I also want all the other idiots out there who are in league with the bomber to know we are coming after them. To that end, I want to give our military, law enforcement and courts the tools they need to bring these guys to justice when they catch them. And, let me be clear, I am talking about justice as the word is defined, not as the loaded word it has become because Senator McCain and the cowboys we see in movies see justice as synonymous with revenge.

Justice; 1) fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made 2) the legal system, or the act of applying or upholding the law

Revenge; 1) the punishment of somebody in retaliation for harm done 2) something done to get even with somebody else who has caused harm

We Americans have developed a system of governance based on fairness and respect for human rights. Granted, we often fall short in carrying this out, but we still tend to a better job than everybody else in the world and we should never stop trying to do better. If we give up pursuing justice and abandon our legal system because we are angry and want simple revenge, the terrorists will have stolen one of our most valuable possessions. We will have taken a step closer to being like them, zealots who believe they have the right to kill, maim and imprison at will in the name of their cause.

The United States courts are perfectly capable of handling the underwear bomber case and meting out justice. They did so in the case of Richard Reid. In 2003 the so-called shoe bomber and self-admitted member of Al Qaeda was convicted by a U.S. federal court and sentenced to life without patrol for attempting to destroy a commercial aircraft in-flight by detonating explosives hidden in his shoes. The underwear bomber deserves the same, but my opinion on that doesn’t matter. What matters is that our courts have the ability to do the job. Senator McCain needs to climb down off his political soapbox and let them do so.

The reason Senator McCain and other Republicans who were silent about the federal court handling the trial of the shoe bomber in 2003 are voicing objections in this case is to score political points against a Democrat President. This political game playing is disappointing coming from men and women who so proudly wear patriotism on their sleeves and it tarnishes America’s image. Let’s cut the politics, embrace justice and focus our efforts on rooting out the evil people who are out to do us harm.

The best course to beating the terrorists and tyrants of the world is the one that seeks justice and steers clear of retribution without righteousness.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.