He's baaa-aaack! Gordon Smith battles Ron Wyden on campaign TV ad rules
Kari Chisholm
Gordon Smith
When last we heard from the well-dressed former Senator (oh, how it warms my heart to say former), he had landed on his feet as the president of the National Association of Broadcasters -- the lobbying arm of the television industry.
Last September, I wrote that the move meant that we probably "won't have Gordon Smith to kick around anymore." I spoke too soon!
Now, it appears that El Gordo is girding for battle against our very own Senator Ron Wyden. You see, in the wake of the terrible, awful, no-good, very bad Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, Wyden is one of the lead sponsors of the DISCLOSE Act, a bill to counter the coming flood of corporate money. And Gordon Smith will be leading the fight in favor of big corporate money.
Wyden's signature provision is an extension of the "I approved this message" bit we see from candidates. Wyden would have corporate CEOs do the same thing in their ads -- a bit of transparency that will actually help reduce the scale and impact of these ads.
What's got Gordon Smith so upset, however, is a provision in the law that would require broadcasters to sell ads to political parties at their lowest available rate. That's already the case for federal candidates, and Wyden would make it possible for the political parties to get the rate.
Wyden's provision is especially important in the wake of Citizens United. You see, when candidates pop up every two years and buy a couple weeks of advertising, they're not a big customer to otherwise justify any discounts. But if Anheuser Busch or Pfizer or Exxon were to come in and directly buy political advertising, it would be presumably be done on the same account that they do their regular advertising -- one that's making massive year-round buys, and presumably getting some nice volume discounts.
As Marc Elias, a campaign finance lawyer who has worked for both Jeff Merkley and Al Franken, told CQ:
“The DISCLOSE Act, for the first time, benefits parties in a meaningful way by both correcting the proper coordination standard when they run advertisements supporting their candidates and also in providing relief from high broadcast television and radio rates during the prime election season.”
Wyden's exactly right to support this critical campaign reform - and Gordon Smith is, unsurprisingly, just being the corporate lackey he's always been.
There's more from Jeff Mapes at the O, and from Matthew Murray at CQ Politics.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
11:03 a.m.
May 3, '10
Full disclosure: My firm built Ron Wyden's campaign website. I speak only for myself.
6:06 p.m.
May 3, '10
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic, Kari. Political candidates (including state and local, not just federal candidates) already can buy time at the lowest available rate. This requirement has never been extended to political parties or to ballot measure campaigns or any other generic political ads.
While in theory large corporate advertisers that receive volume discounts for their normal advertiseing could perhaps get the same discount for political advertising, that hasn't happened yet and (in my opinion) is extremely unlikely to happen.
But under Wyden's bill, poltiical parties would qualify for artificially low advertising rates whether there is any corporate polticial advertising or not.
And this applies to individual televsion stations, not just networks. In fact, most political TV advertising is increasingly local and regional, not national.
Given the pecarious economic condition of local tv stations, I think the NABs concerns have merit. But then I don't think every issue comes down to Democrat versus Republican.
12:53 a.m.
May 4, '10
"While in theory large corporate advertisers that receive volume discounts for their normal advertiseing could perhaps get the same discount for political advertising, that hasn't happened yet"
Um, yeah. Because the decision just happened, and we haven't had the first general election under the new rules yet.
The idea is to defuse the grenade before it explodes.
12:56 a.m.
May 4, '10
Oh, and this: "But under Wyden's bill, poltiical parties would qualify for artificially low advertising rates"
No. The rule doesn't create "artificially" low ad rates. The current law - which would be expanded to party ads - simply requires that they extend their lowest available rate to political candidates.
That "lowest available" rate may as high as they want it to be. But if they offer a low discount rate to, say, Anheuser Busch - then they have to offer it to candidates (and hopefully soon, to parties.)
One remedy for broadcasters is to raise their lowest available rate.
If you click on the CQ article, you'll see that the complaints from broadcasters are less about rates and more about control.
5:52 a.m.
May 4, '10
I remember when I was a kid, Mad Magazine had a regular series about how when people say X, they relaly mean Y. The most memorable was "When people say 'It's not the money, it's the principle' they really mean 'It's the money.'"
Of course it's about rates. That's why political parties want it and that's why TV stations don't want it.
I don't know if you've ever been involved in a state or local campaign where TV stations won't sell political ads for certain rces because they can make more on full-priced commercial ads but I have.
"Control" is not simply about record-keeping or being second-guessed; first and foremost, it is about trying to ensure that the deals you consciously and intentionally cut to attract high-volume commercial advertisers áren't suddenly extended to a larger number of unanticipated one-time political advertisers.
Your assertion that broadcasters can always raise their lowest available rates says volumes about your understanding of, and sympathey for, people in business.
By the way, I like the principal innovation included in Wyden's bill, i.e., requiring corporate sponsors to include an "I approve of this message" disclaimer. That actually addresse the potential for abuse. The other provision is simply taking advantage of a legitimate concern to provide an unwarranted financial benefit to political parties.
5:38 p.m.
May 4, '10
Dang Gordon where'd you find that lapel!?