BCT Editorial – 12/1/10

The editorial says, “Pennsylvania is one of 11 states that allow unlimited contributions to political campaigns.  Meanwhile, the federal government and 39 states limit the amount of money donors can make to individual candidates and political action committees.  If you don’t think that makes a difference, check out the run-up to last month’s general election when the natural gas drilling industry poured millions of dollars into the governor’s race.  As the editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer noted, when ‘a wealthy individual, corporation or union can donate a six-figure sum to a candidate, the concepts of a level playing field and fair elections become a laughingstock.’”

In case you missed it, this is a self-serving position.  Why?  The Times complains about hard dollars but says nothing of the soft dollars contributed by the Times in the form of favorable editorials and “news” stories.  This is a recurring issue with the Times.  As I wrote in a previous critique, “The Times has no problem with free speech by corporations as long as those businesses are part of the press.  That is, the Times is all for freedom of speech (‘us[ing] their wealth to control the political debate by setting the tone, framing the issues and shaping the images’) for itself, but would deny the same freedom to Jim Bob Steel Company across town.  Why should Calkins Media, Inc., [owner and operator of the Times] be allowed to use its wealth to publish columns, editorials, and ‘news’ articles advocating candidates and issues, but not Jim Bob Steel?”

As long as we have accurate reporting and convenient, timely access to the data, I have no problems with “unlimited contributions to political campaigns.”  It’s called individual liberty.