Media Ethics: Issues and Cases 8th Edition by Philip Patterson, Lee Wilkins

Exercise 7

Politics and Money-What's Private and What's Not
LEE WILKINS
University of Missouri
When the Supreme Court in 2011 decided that corporations and unions could contribute an unlimited amount of money to political campaigns-what is referred to as the Citizen's United Decision-most political pundits and scholars agreed that the opinion had the potential to alter the democratic election process.
The Supreme Court decision renewed journalistic emphasis on covering campaign finance. It was a story that had been around for at least 50 years but, with the new ruling, received new urgency. The journalistic reasoning was fairly straightforward: if wealthy individuals (who were not themselves candidates for public office) were willing to write checks to politicians they supported for millions of dollars, shouldn't the public know something about these donors?
Because of campaign finance laws that were not altered by the Supreme Court ruling, large and unlimited donations went to Super PACs, outsized political action committees that are not legally required to report the source or size of their donations as a candidate would have to, for instance. What happened nationally with campaign finance was also evident at the state and sometimes the local level. Even state Supreme Court justices were not immune from the attacks levied by outside interests on them. When a midlevel state elected official coming up for re-election encountered an opponent funded by a Super PAC, the resulting tsunami in cash overwhelmed these traditionally underfunded campaigns.
In the early months of the 2012 presidential campaign the New York Times reported the following:
• Billionaire Harold Simmons gave $1 million to Newt Gingrich's political action committee, another $1.1 million to Texas Gov. Rick Perry's Super PAC, and $10 million to American Crossroads, a Republican-oriented Super PAC advised by controversial GOP strategist Karl Rove.
• Peter Thiel, PayPal co-founder and a self-identified libertarian, gave U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's PAC $2.6 million.
Multiple news organizations reported that Gingrich's largest financial supporter, Sheldon Adelson, had donated more than $10 million to the Super PAC Winning Our Future.
• Millionaire Rex Sinquefield, of St. Louis, Mo., donated more than $1 million to various campaigns in the state, including campaigns focusing on public education and conservative political candidates.
While the bulk of million-dollar donations went to Republicans, President Barack Obama's campaign also received:
• at least $1 million in support from the Service Employees International Union; and
• $2 million from film industry executive Jeffrey Katzenberg.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both nationally and locally, endorsed candidates, often accompanied by sizable donations from individual members.
Many of the large-dollar donors were on record with controversial political opinions or business decisions. Simmons, for example had clashed with the Environmental Protection Agency over compliance with regulations for a Texas radioactive waste dump, Thiel had blamed giving women the right to vote on the rise of the welfare state, and Freiss had said that aspirin was an effective contraceptive when women "put it between their knees."
When the Obama campaign placed a list of million-dollar GOP donors on its Web site, Frank VanderSloot, who had contributed more than $1 million to the Mitt Romney Super PAC, characterized Obama's list as an "enemies list" borrowing the term from the Nixon presidency when such a list did exist. Both VanderSloot and the billionaire brothers, Charles and David Koch, who had bankrolled many political campaigns, claimed that the publication of their names and their donations had made them subject to attacks and a loss of business.
On June 20, 2012, in a report by NPR's Andrea Seabrook, VanderSloot was quoted as saying that he had lost customers, received negative press and been the target of unsavory e-mails. VanderSloot refused to talk with NPR in its series on millionaire donors-not a single donor was willing to be interviewed on the record-but had spoken earlier with Fox News about the response to his donation after it became public.
As might be expected, the publicity and reporting surrounding these donations made its way to Congress. There, Republican Mitch McConnell (KY) said that the coverage was infringing on the donors' right to free speech. "This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to expose its critics to harassment and intimidation. That's why it's critically important for all conservatives, and indeed all Americans, to stand up and unite in defense of the freedom to organize around the causes we believe in."
Democrats shot back quoting conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who was on record as saying that publicity is part of the price of getting involved in the game of politics as it is now played.
NPR, in its series on millionaire donors, also asked the large-dollar contributors why they were unwilling to be interviewed by NPR for the story. The question was met with universal silence.
Can you justify using ethical theory in the current state of reporting how much candidates contribute to their own political campaigns?