Soaps
In the “old days” – maybe twenty-five years ago – television stations made money by selling commercials. Broadcasters used studies of who watched what show, produced by the Neilsen Company, to figure out the “demographics” of the audience. Neilsen Ratings would identify how many watched, their age groups, sex and income level.
The broadcasters would go to companies that wanted to reach those specific groups and sold them commercial time. It really wasn’t that complicated. It was no surprise that men, twenty to thirty-five, watched football games. Beer companies bought the commercial time. Or, that kids watched cartoons on Saturday morning. The toy manufacturers jumped right in.
Even earlier, in the 1950’s, many American women were stay-at-home Moms and homemakers. Televisions then were big boxes with little black and white screens that took a while to “warm up”. To reach those homemakers, companies that made home care products; soaps, detergents and the like actually produced dramatic programs.
They aired live, five days a week. They were called “soap operas” not because they sold soap, but because they were actually produced by soap companies. The biggest manufacturer, Proctor and Gamble, produced Another World, As the World Turns, The Edge of Night, Guiding Light, and Search for Tomorrow among others.
Micro-Targeting
Mark Zuckerberg and his Facebook team found a whole new way to make money through advertising. Unlike the broad analysis that Neilsen provided broadcasters, Facebook’s interface with their users allowed them to gather detailed information. It isn’t just the age, sex, gender, and income factors of Neilsen. Facebook “knows” what the user likes and dislikes, from food to politics to movies to clothes. Facebook “knows” how old the users kids are, and what they do for fun. They know what the “user” does for fun too.
Facebook (and other similar Internet companies) can sell advertisers access to exactly the customers they want. They have designed programs that specifically target individuals meeting exacting criteria, and get their ads directly to them. For example: I am a sixty-three year old white male, who has an RV, is interested in politics, track and field, sixties music and lost dogs. When I randomly click on Facebook, the ads are: retirement planning, ugly Christmas sweaters, Track n Field , and Ohio getaways.
It all sounds pretty harmless.
Speech is Money
The Founding Fathers were concerned about free speech, so concerned in fact, that it was included in the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”. They knew that for the Republic to work, it needed an educated electorate who understood what was going on. Government support for public education even predates the Constitution, with the Northwest Ordinance providing for public school finance in 1784.
But the Founding Fathers also hedged their bets. Out of the entire Federal Government, only one part, the House of Representatives, was originally selected directly by the people. State Legislatures chose the Senate, and a separate Electoral College chose the President. The Founders wanted an educated electorate, but they also wanted to place barriers on the public’s ability to quickly alter that government.
(By the way, the current argument for keeping the Electoral College because “the founders wanted the smaller states to have a say” is just not valid. In Federalist 68, Hamilton makes the entire argument for the Electoral College based on keeping those who choose the President separate from the rest of the government, and hopefully, avoid corruption and “tumult and disorder”. It worked for 228 years.)
Even then, free speech meant access to money. The ability to read was commonplace (about 75%) in 1800 United States, but to get a message out required access to printing presses, putting out newspapers or books. The link between free speech and money began well before the writing of the Constitution, or even the Revolution.
Money and Politics
There have been several attempts to control money and politics in modern American history. After the excesses of the Nixon campaign in the Watergate era, the Campaign Reform Act of 1974 placed limits on how much any one contributor could donate to a campaign, and how much a campaign could spend.
In 1976 the Supreme Court threw out the campaign spending limits. In Buckley v Valeo, the Court linked money to free speech, saying limiting one limited the other. However, Buckley did allow the contribution limits to remain in effect, as well as a public funding option for Presidential elections.
From 1976 through 2004, all of the major party nominees for President accepted public funds for their campaigns. They were required to follow the Federal Election Commission rules that banned donations and limited expenditures. In 2008, Barack Obama found that he could raise more money outside of the Federal system with massive Internet generated small donations, and privately financed his campaign. Other candidates caught on, and while FEC Presidential funding is still available, it isn’t used.
The Obama campaign raised unlimited funds while staying within the FEC rules. But it was in 2010 that the Supreme Court re-visited Buckley, and in the Citizens United case, and opened the floodgates to unlimited donations. Citizens United created a whole new “class” of political operators, outside the regular campaign structures. While Political Action Committees (PACS) existed before, after Citizen United they could raise and spend as much as they wanted, with no limitation on the size of donations.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton’s campaign and associated PAC’s spent $1.4 Billion. Trump’s campaign was somewhat cheaper at $957.6 million (WAPO). Money equals speech, and both campaigns had a whole lot to say.
Money Meets Influence
Ohio is considered a “battleground” state in Presidential elections. Ohio residents are used to an infinite amount of candidate television commercials, so much so, that election day is a huge relief for the viewing public. Millions of dollars are spent in the critical media markets of Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati.
But television political commercials, like the “soaps” of old, still are a “broad brush.” Money now buys detailed, intimate, and personalized contact with the individual voter on the Internet. And it can do even more as Cambridge Analytica infamously pioneered. It allows voters to be manipulated, using a mix of propaganda, facts and images. There seems to be no boundaries.
At least on television, the broadcasters are ultimately responsible for what they air. Facebook has declared itself a “platform” rather than a broadcaster. The difference seems to be, “a platform” requires nothing of the provider other than to make sure the platform technically works. Facebook takes no responsibility for what appears on the their service. In fact, Facebook has determined that they are for “freedom of speech” by allowing ALL “political” speech, false or true.
A Capitalist View
This is the definition of a modern capitalist. Mark Zuckerberg, through his own brilliance and hard work, has “built a better mousetrap.” And he has absolutely profited from that “mousetrap;” he’s the fifth richest person in the world with a net worth of $68 Billion.
He claims he is defending “free speech.” While that can be argued, there is no question that Zuckerberg is defending something even more important to him: Facebook’s profits. The Internet, and other broadcast mediums are awash in seemingly unlimited amounts of uncontrolled cash. If the Supreme Court won’t take control of that supply, then it is up to the Congress to regulate the mediums. $68 billion doesn’t encourage self-regulation; it’s up to our government to do the job.
It makes sense that it takes some money to exercise free speech in a capitalist nation. But today, a sea of money, buying detailed, “psycho-graphic polling,” is drowning free speech out.
That can’t be what James Madison meant in the First Amendment.
