Skip to main content

Cross-posted from Real Economics.

In classical republican theory, two major threats to self-government were recognized.

The first was a standing military. The second was concentrations of wealth.

Free speech is not absolute. The speech rights of military officers in USA are to a rather large degree limited by both custom and tradition, as well as law.

No such restrictions have been developed to limit free speech by the rich. With the rulings by the Roberts Court, it is time we start thinking along these lines. (The most notorious ruling was Citizens United v. FEC, which held that corporations have the same speech rights as human beings. This morning, theCourt struck down any limits on the total amount of money any single individual corporation can give to any number of political campaigns.)

I don't know what the exact percentage is, but I think a good guess is that at least two thirds of political campaign spending goes for TV ads.

How informative are political ads on TV? And how truthful?

The United States was designed to be a democratic republic - a system of government that is designed to be responsive to the people of the United States as a whole, and not to the wealthiest 1 percent. The key to a functioning democratic republic is an informed citizenry. Yet, the key feature of modern political ads are thirty or sixty second TV ads that more often than not are deliberately designed to misinform, misrepresent, mislead, and inflame.

The founding fathers and mothers concluded, from their intense historical study of previous republics, most especially Rome, that the most important safeguard of a republic was a sense of public virtue, which is cultivated by general education of the population. John Adams was most proud of his writing of the Massachusetts Constitution, which includes this remarkable admonishment:

Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislators and magistrates in all future periods of this commonwealth to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them, especially the university at Cambridge, public schools, and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings, sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.
Only an educated public could spot those political leaders who had been corrupted and lost their sense of public virtue, and subject them to the censure and punishment requisite for preserving the republic. As Jefferson states, "An informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy."

Now, we need to ask the question, does electronic means of communications lend itself to informing citizens? Well, yes and no. Certainly, there are lengthy documentaries that serve to inform; there may even be 30-second political ads that inform truthfully. But I believe that there is a major difference between electronic media and printed media: electronic media, most especially in the form of short radio and TV spots, are designed more to appeal to emotion than to reason. I believe that social scientists such as psychologists, sociologists, and linguists can marshal more than enough evidence to prove this - even in a court of law. Recall that one of the historic developments in U.S. jurisprudence was the Brandeis brief, a legal argument submitted to the Supreme Court by Louis Brandeis (before he was appointed to the Court), which relied more on sociological studies and statistics than on legal citations to make the argument that it was NOT unconstitutional for a state to restrict the number of hours a woman could work each week. (The issue was that working 50 or 60 or more hours a week had a negative effect on the "health, safety, morals, and general welfare of women.")

Similar to Brandeis' important and pioneering use of social studies and statistics to buttress a legal argument, I believe that the scientific evidence can be marshaled to show that short radio and TV spots do more harm than good when weighed in the balance of whether the advance or retard the public virtue of the republic's citizens. No less than six studies of Fox News viewers showed that they were much less informed than those in the control sample. By joining such social science with classical republican theory, I believe the argument can, and should, be made that political ads on TV and radio can be declared unconstitutional and be banned, just like cigarette commercials.

By banning political television ads, you remove the major need for huge amounts of money in political campaigns. Of course, other uses of billions of dollars might be found, such as get-out-the-vote efforts and phone banks. But are these other uses as likely to mislead and misinform? The best solution to removing the influence of money on politics is probably going to remain total public financing of political campaigns.

Moreover, I believe there is a good argument to be made to banning free speech by the rich entirely. Classical republican theory is quite clear on the dangerous and destructive role the rich often play in usurping political power in a republic. Banning free speech by the rich is not as outlandish as you probably think at first - there already is a group of citizens who have their free speech rights severely restricted, as much by custom and tradition as by law: military officers. Just think about that for a minute, and you realize that it is entirely in accord with the belief that one of the greatest threats to a democratic republic is a standing military.

Well, in classical republican theory, the rich are as much a threat as a standing military. It is unfortunate that the view that the Constitution is irredeemably flawed because it favors the rich has been gaining currency as we slide deeper into oligarchy and economic debasement. I interpret the historical record quite differently. Madison's Federalist Number 10 on factions I interpret to be a warning about the dangers of economic interests: "the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property," Madison wrote. Therefore, he continues, "The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation..."

Madison is not arguing that economic inequality is desirable or even acceptable. Rather, he is arguing that it is inevitable, and, moreover, economic inequality is so dangerous and so pernicious, that the entire framework of government is being erected with an eye toward checking and corralling its political effects.

Can restricting the free speech of the rich be considered a legitimate means of checking the effects of the "unequal distribution of property"? Maybe, maybe not. I suppose not many people would agree with me on this issue.


Humanity is now confronted with the problem of global climate change. Most of our very best scientists are warning that this problem threatens humanity's very existence. The most recent warning was just two days ago, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a 2,600-page catalogue of the risks to life and livelihood resulting from climate change.  

In June 2008, James Hansen - one of the world's leading climate scientists, and one of the first to warn of global climate change - used the 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress to suggest that we need to begin treating purveyors of gcc misinformation as criminals.  "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organizations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime," Hansen told The Guardian.

In 2010, Donald Brown, associate professor in environmental ethics, science and law at Penn State University, put forward the argument again:

The corporations that have funded the sowing of doubt on this issue are clearly doing this because they see greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies as adversely affecting their financial interests.

This might be understood as a new type of crime against humanity. Scepticism in science is not bad, but sceptics must play by the rules of science including publishing their conclusions in peer-reviewed scientific journals and not make claims that are not substantiated by the peer-reviewed literature. The need for responsible scepticism is particularly urgent if misinformation from sceptics could lead to great harm.

We may not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.

Not many people have begun to consider how the existential threat of global climate change will impact and change our political and economic beliefs and behavior. I believe conservatism, oligarchy, neo-liberalism, are all spent forces. They have had their day in the sun, and I believe the majority of people now recognize that these political beliefs and practices do far more harm than good. But more importantly, they have all failed miserably to solve the problems now threatening human existence. And humanity WILL survive, though there will be intense suffering and deprivation experienced by billions of individual people. For humanity to survive, humanity will do what is necessary to survive. And right now, that means terminating the political nightmare of the past half century of domination by conservatives, oligarchs, and neo-liberals. These harmful political beliefs and practices have been deliberately fostered and funded by rich reactionaries, using such organizations as the American Liberty League, the John Birch Society, the Mont Pelerin Society, the American Enterprise Institute, and Freedom Works.

Can we really afford to allow the rich to continue misusing the freedom of speech?

I believe only a response firmly grounded in the classical republican theory of government, which inspired the creation of the United States, will give us an answer that allows us to circumscribe the harmful behavior of the rich, while safeguarding the rights and liberties of the vast majority of citizens.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If the notion is that the more speech (7+ / 0-)

    and more ideas the better, then the notion that money is speech is manifestly false.  Money amplifies its speaker's speech and represses everyone else's.

    "So listen, oh, Don't wait." Vampire Weekend.

    by Publius2008 on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 10:34:03 AM PDT

  •  Free Speech includes the right to lie (0+ / 0-)

    This is well established... New York Times v Sullivan, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, Rickert v Washington, and recently when the court struck down the Stolen Valor Act in United States v Alvarez.

    Also, there was that lawsuit against FOX News in FLorida about the Milk investigation.  The reporter's name was Akre I think.  I don't remember what court decided that but it was essentially that the media has the right to broadcast misinformation.

    I actually support this notion because the alternative is to have the State be the sole arbiter, with all of its enforcement powers behind it, of what is or is not "Truth".  

    That to me is far scarier then letting people say whatever they want and allow people to use their own reason and judgment to evaluate it.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 10:42:21 AM PDT

  •  I, for one, welcome our new Oligarch Overlords (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    Libertarianism is just Fascism with a facelift. Scratch the surface of Libertarianism and you will find the notion that corporations should rule supreme, just as it was with Fascism..

    by Walt starr on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 10:48:54 AM PDT

  •  the future is so bright because we... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, claude

    are going to be burning our foreclosed on homes for heat.

    between the climate changing and the wealth disparity we are looking at a chaotic future.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 10:49:32 AM PDT

  •  Excellent information and analysis of this case (0+ / 0-)

    at Here is a link:

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:20:23 AM PDT

  •  thought-provoking post. thanks. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    i could not agree more with this:

    We may not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.
    we see the beginning of 'mass suffering' caused by climate change in east africa where we live and work. traditional ways to read the weather don't work as weather patterns have changed dramatically in the past decade or so. both drought and flooding are among the disastrous effects.

    during february we had a week of heavy rain a month before the long rains 'should' begin and weeks before the farmers had their fields ready to plant.

    i asked 3 tanzanians what they thought. the first one said, 'yes, the long rains are beginning early and we will see many people hungry as they can't plant.'

    the second said, 'oh, no--it can't be the long rains; it's far too early!'

    the third guy, looking devastated, said slowly, 'i have no idea. maybe they will stop long enough for us to plant and then return and we will still get a harvest. but i don't know what to expect.'

    our ngo works with the smallholder farmers as they are the most vulnerable and our mandate is to work with the very poor. a single crop failure is all that it takes to put a village into severe hunger. the downside is that they are also very low capacity partners and at times we tear our hair out trying to get the information and reporting we have to have to keep our funders happy.

    yet the sustainable ag practices that we advocate are about the only hope we see for the subsistence farmers of east africa, this fragile canary in the world's coal mine that is fluttering in desperation for life as its oxygen is sucked away by global decisions that ignore the little people entirely.

    it seems to me that it would be absolutely appropriate for our partners to have a voice on the world stage indicting these vast systems based on sheer greed and the individuals perpetuating them as criminals. they are.

    There is no worse enemy of God and Man than zeal armed with power and guided by a feeble intellect... --William James

    by oslyn7 on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:05:53 PM PDT

  •  It's not just a crime against humanity (0+ / 0-)

    It's a crime against all life forms.

    Just because we don't have a specific statute for the crime of ecocide doesn't make it any less monstrous.

  •  All we really need is a law that says (0+ / 0-)

    The truth must be told at all time on the public airwaves and in the media overall. That puts an end to the corrupt  influence that the rich have, if they can't lie they can't corrupt. Lacking that a roll of duct tape would work wonders!

    Dogs and Philosophers do the greatest good and get the fewest rewards (Diogenes)

    by Out There on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:31:04 PM PDT

  •  Banning political TV ads would help a lot. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    claude, bluezen

    That's where the super-rich gain their biggest unfair advantage. These 'spots' as they're called, are so expensive as to be available to only the wealthiest of sponsors. It's like giving a handicap to those who need it least.

    Small voices don't get heard from on TV. Rather, the naturally passive TV audience is unwillingly subjected to hypnotic manipulations of powerful interests.

    •  i've always thought banning political ads was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the easiest way to go about reigning in the lop-sided advantage big money/power has over the political process. if cigarettes can be banned, so can political ads -- & in a way, they're much more dangerous than cigarettes! -- especially to democracy.

      of course, the networks would raise holy hell b/c they'd take a major hit to their revenue, but that's (another) part of the problem.

      The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

      by bluezen on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 04:54:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure the networks could find (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        other customers for their air time. If they couldn't, so much the better. I'm also sure the viewing public wouldn't miss those ads too terribly. It's a good proposal -- what's not to like?

  •  don't other democracies (in the uk & europe) (0+ / 0-)

    limit the amount of time a campaign can be conducted -- like to a certain number of weeks (3, or 6)? & i think some countries ban political ads on tv during that time, too.

    that seems like a good place to start in reforming the process.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. ~ J.K. Galbraith

    by bluezen on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 04:57:55 PM PDT

  •  I had never heard of the Brandeis Brief (0+ / 0-)

    But I clicked your link and read about it. Thanks for including that.

    I think it's a fascinating bit of history because of the analogous arguments used much later in Brown v. Board of Education in the 1950s, in which the plaintiffs argued that psychologically and sociologically, "separate but equal" is impossible because separate is inherently unequal. And SCOTUS agreed unanimously.

    Another interesting point is that Louis Brandeis later became the first Jewish-American on the Supreme Court. And Thurgood Marshall (who argued Brown v. Board) later became the first African-American on the Supreme Court. So there are some cool parallels.

    "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

    by Dbug on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 05:20:40 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site