Sen. Mark Begich is worried about Joe Miller and “the entire national right-wing attack machine.” Those are words he used in a recent letter soliciting funds for his 2014 reelection bid. Instead of starting with his positions on current issues and a list of his accomplishments, Begich devoted the first dozen sentences of the letter to how his opposition is preparing to take him down. But the underlying message in this uninspiring introduction is how the commercialization of our society is corrupting our democratic process.
As a Democrat in a Republican leaning state, Begich knows he’ll likely be the underdog in the race to retain his U.S. Senate seat. What will make his battle more difficult, he says, is that the GOP will be “spending millions of Washington dollars to distort [his] record and promote Joe Miller.” It’s a scenario he should be partly familiar with because that’s how the Democrats helped him four years ago while the FBI was investigating possible corruption by the late Sen. Ted Stevens. And just as he claims the GOP at the national level doesn’t “care about what’s important to Alaskans,” the D.C. Democrats back then didn’t either.
What will be different in his 2014 race is how campaign money will come into the state from undisclosed sources. That’s because the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case equated political contributions with free speech. The transparency problem created by the ruling could have been corrected before the election that year. Indeed, the Supreme Court actually advised Congress to pass new legislation that would have required sufficient disclosure so the voting public could determine which candidates might wind up beholden to special interests. But Senate Republicans defeated such a bill crafted by Democrats in 2010 and more recently shot down a similar proposal.
Begich may be sounding early alarm bells because Alaskans really won’t see much of the effect of Citizens United in this year’s national elections. But around the rest of the country, billionaires, large corporations and every other well financed special interest group are prepared to spend enormous sums of money to influence the outcome of other races. And while political analysts believe Republicans will benefit most from the lack of transparency in campaign spending, blaming them for the deterioration of our democratic process is too easy. There are other entities who for decades have been contributing of demise of our electoral politics.
Let’s start with the advertising industry. They’re drooling at the prospect of revenue from record breaking spending this year. It would be one thing if they were hired to honestly portray a candidate’s record and position on the issues. But the vast majority of their television and radio ads will be totally void of substance. Worse yet, the most effective ones are often those that slyly distort the truth. In other words, the most sought after advertisers are those who can legally deceive most of the people most of the time. New York Times columnist David Brooks put it this way — “the ad-makers now take dishonesty as a mark of their professional toughness.”
Still we have to ask ourselves how they’ve become so skilled at such an ugly trade. For one, our love of competitive capitalism has fostered the deterioration of professional decency that Brooks describes. There is always somebody out there willing to go further beyond the line between truth and deception. And they’ve been handsomely rewarded while leading much of the industry to the bottom of an ethical swamp.
However, the root of the problem isn’t related to politics. The advertisers learned long ago that truth and substance aren’t prerequisites for making effective television and radio commercials to promote many thousands of consumer products and services for sale on the open market. It’s where they make most of their money while practicing deceiving the American public.
Begich, Miller, and this year’s presidential candidates are politicians whose first objective is to win votes. And they’ve seen how easily the shopper’s mind is manipulated by ads void of substance and truth. So if we want elections where we can gauge the candidates by their honesty and integrity, then we’ve got to stop playing the everyday fool for the American advertising industry.
• Moniak is a Juneau resident.
Comments (26)
Add commentImagine....
-A requirement for truth and transparency in political advertisements
-If the money spent on campaigns were to be applied to the national debt
-Everyone having equal access to our political system
-an end to crony capitalism and pork barrel politics
-an end to the two party dominance of our political system
Now while you're digesting that....Who likes the Supreme Court decision on citizens united? What's to stop a foreign entity from buying the election and putting their candidate in the white house?
Foreign entities and citizens are still
not allowed to financially contribute. Citizens United did not open that particular door.
If Begich can't
run on his accomplishments, he shouldn't run at all. No doubt he's scared to death of the vindication of Uncle Ted, and fears a backlash. But considering that his support of all things liberal is contrary to all things Alaskan, his concern is likely real. So, as a liberal he promptly begins to blame others and creates a straw-man argument in an attempt to preempt any potential adversity. By beginning to cry woe is me before there's even a challenger, he can hopefully begin the much needed money haul now.
I was a staunch supporter of Begich as mayor of Anchorage, as I was of Tony Knowles as both mayor and governor. But in the US Congress we need howling dog conservatives like Ted, Frank, and Don. It's disappointing that Begich has turned into just another typical brain-deal liberal, trotting along with the crowd and spouting whatever the national party line mantra happens to be that day. In other words, he really should fear losing his seat.
Adios, mark.
Adios,mark.
Begich
Like Begich or not, he will still be better than Miller
I would vote for my
I would vote for my neighbor's dog, before I would vote for Joe Miller.....
Agreed.
See the link below for a another great piece and be sure to read the comments.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/opinion/raines-whining-republicans/index.h...
Good job Begich
Seems his attempts actually worked. He's already got people talking about what a moron Miller is rather than anything about whether Begich himself deserves reelection. There is no GOP candidate for a race more than two years away, yet the liberal smear machine already has the GOP talking about anything other than the Dem's record and successes, or lack thereof. Good job, Mark, well played.
liberal smear machine... that's a good one.
Well played, Jim, well played. Would you like to throw in a "lamestream media" jab or a "youbetcha"? No comment on how conservatives always get the short-end of the stick because reality has a liberal bias? Sorry, I hope you don't consider that a "gotcha" question... wouldn't want you to look stupid in public. Whoops... you beat me to it.
ken dunker, as far as foreign entities are concerned,
the citizens united decision does nothing to prevent foreign corporations from funding campaigns in US elections. The supreme court left this issue up to US code section 441e, which states no foreign national may make contributions to US election campaigns. However, this law does not prevent US domestic corporations with foreign interests/ties/owners from donating to US election campaigns.
So, essentially, a foreign national may make a donation to a US election campaign in the form of routing it through a domestic corporation. I don't know about you, but it sounds like a possibility. Citizens United opened the door to any US corporation to fund campaigns. As many US corporations operating foreign entities, can you believe it doesn't occur in reverse order? Or, even the possibility of, simply paying a US corporation to make donations. Who/what could prevent this from happening?
Instead of whining about Joe
Instead of whining about Joe Miller why don't you and your other Democratically controlled senate colleagues come up with budget?
@ curtis
The Dems have come up with a workable budget, and the Reps rejected it
@Ken
"not allowed to financially contribute. Citizens United did not open that particular door."
Many of this countrys large corps are worldwide...so what exactly stops foreign interests from donating and controling the election again? Big money is not known for playing by the rules...and now they can't be held accountable.
The check's in the mail and America just has to trust all will be well? Sorry...I'm not convinced the proper safegards are in place
@billb
You're falling for the party line. Obama put forth a budget, the Dems have not. Obama's budget was rejected unanimously, by both Republicans and Democrats. The republicans have put forth a budget, but the Dems refuse to even vote for it. It's probably time to have your talking points updated.
Foreign nationalists and corporations have always
been able to 'brown bag' funding into the U.S. It is still a crime. I am opposed to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizen's United just as I was in the 70's when Corporations were declared citizens. It is an insult to me as a citizen.
The Supreme Court is not the final say. We are.
Want to change it? Amend the Constitution. The Nine robes have the power to interpret, we have the power to change it, but until the stench becomes too much for even the average citizen to stand nothing will be done.
ken dunker, foreign nationals can and do control domestic
corporations. It is completely legal for them to fund campaigns now since citizens united was passed. This is new. Not old.
I am going to dig a little deeper on this,
you've peeked my interest cheesypoof.
@ newlife,
"I am glad of Citizen's United because it just might "level the playing field"!"
Actually, genius, the citizens united amendment came from the US Government prohibiting corporations AND UNIONS from political expenditures! But, it doesn't surprise me that you would post such bullsh!t. Sell your own best interests to the lowest bidder... talk about clueless. Corporations are great and unions are terrible... what an idiot.
There is no cap on election campaign funding from foreign and domestic interests. Corporations are not people. Corporations have one interest in mind: profits. There is no consideration for the employees on the ground floor.
Unions fight for the union members. Corporations fight for the executives. Who do you think the majority of Americans would agree with? millions of laborers, or hundreds of executives? Get real. I don't know what union gave you a bad taste, but I to be honest I don't really care. I wouldn't be surprised if your hatred of unions stems purely from your excessive listening to rush limbaugh.
At any rate, citizens united allows both unions and corporations to be political powerhouses. You're too ignorant to pay attention long enough to see you don't even agree with it, even though you state you agree with it completely. HAHA, you're a joke.
Thank you, cheeesy
I agree.
Is Begich kidding?
He ONLY won the election because of a smear attack on the good name of Ted Stevens in pre-election. It was proved that all of that was lies about Ted stealing. Begich however, used those lies to propel himself into the election. Now he's all worried about Joe doing it to him. Sorry Mark, you gotta go.
small wonder
that our TV-addicted society has a national political dialogue that wouldn't be out of place on a grade-school playground, as evidenced by many of the posts above...
Meanwhile, politicians of both stripes are bought and paid for down to their shoes, and eager to further the narrative that "Money talks."
Is Begich any different? Not really, but Joe Miller makes him look good enough to vote for---And that's not Mark's doing, akjim, it's all Joe; he's his own worst smear machine.
akjim, fyi, there won't be a budget discussion until
the democrats agree to keep lower taxes for the wealthy. Doesn't sound like much of a discussion when republicans are unwilling to raise taxes on those who can handle it in order to avoid further increasing the debt limit. Your party is bullheaded... I'll give you guys that. But that's all.
By the way, the house democrats put forth a budget plan extending the bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $200,000, or couples making less than $250,000, but that obviously didn't pass. Republicans state that raising taxes on anyone during these tough times could further stifle the sickly economy. So they would like to cut important programs in order to pass a budget...
yes, cutting government programs during a struggling economy is the way to go. The private sector doesn't benefit at all from government spending. not one bit.
try this one out:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-08-01/budget-and-tax-impasse-threate...
@ tikitime, are you serious? Mark Begich only won
because of a smear campaign on ted stevens? Stevens was a convicted felon at the time of Begich's election. If Stevens won again, we all would look like a bunch of sarah palin idiots. As it turned out, Ted got shafted a bit, but it doesn't mean he was squeaky clean.
As far as Begich winning on a smear capaign, it doesn't take much to smear a CONVICTED FELON! Get with the now. Holy crap, you sound out to lunch...
Hey Cheeesypoof
Ted Stevens was found guilty but before sentencing the indictment was dismissed-VACATING THE CONVICTION and the prosecutors from the justice department were found guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, because they lied and kept key information from the defense attorney. So like I said before...Begich's gotta go...
Tikitime, logic escapes you still.
What kind of smear campaign would a democrat need to run in order for you NOT to vote for a convicted felon republican? Are you that much of a party liner? Ted Stevens was convicted awaiting sentencing. Begich need no smear campaign and why bother trying to change the minds of hardcore conservatives?