Media Organizations and Political Donations

2010-11-05 13:23:04

#1

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

A short while ago, news broke that Fox News donated $1 million to the Republican Governor's Association. Many people on the left criticized this move mostly with arguments based around the idea that news organizations should be, at least in principle, objective. Broadcasting commentary is one thing, but donating directly to political organizations is quite another.

Now, it appears that Keith Olbermann of MSNBC has donated the maximum amount allowed per candidate ($2,400) for 3 Democrats in this election cycle. While this total amount is considerably less than $1 million, Olbermann has been suspended by MSNBC "indefinitely" for violating their ethics policies by making these donations. This makes Olbermann look rather hypocritical, since he blasted Fox for their donation earlier.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … /?iref=NS1

The point of this thread is two-fold. First.... Is what Olbermann did the exact equivalent of what Fox News did, or is it different when one individual donates as compared to when an organization does? If nothing else, campaign finance rules definitely seem to acknowledge a difference by setting stricter limits on individuals than organizations -- both in terms of giving donations and receiving them.

Second... Is it really rational to expect a media organization to be completely objective? Is it really unethical for a media organization (or an anchor) to make donations to a political candidate or organization? I know NBC has the right to set whatever rules they want to for their employees, but I wonder if it's really necessary at this point to include political donations in this.

I mean, like Fox News, it's not like anyone assumed Olbermann was objective.

What do you guys think?

2010-11-05 13:24:54

#2

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6708

Olbermann is the oreilly of msnbc. just all blabber.

But I do disagree that media organizations should be barred from making campaign donations, not like they would have a huge influence on the opposing faction anyway.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2010-11-05 13:30:45

#3

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

Is there a difference really? The free political advertising that each group does on air is far more beneficial to 'their side' than any amount of campaign donations. Donating time, donating money, same thing.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-05 13:32:41

#4

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Is there a difference really? The free political advertising that each group does on air is far more beneficial to 'their side' than any amount of campaign donations. Donating time, donating money, same thing.

Good point. So, basically, penalizing donations would seem to be a completely moot point.

2010-11-05 13:35:25

#5

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Is there a difference really? The free political advertising that each group does on air is far more beneficial to 'their side' than any amount of campaign donations. Donating time, donating money, same thing.
Good point. So, basically, penalizing donations would seem to be a completely moot point.

Scarborough and the other dude have openly donated in the past. MSNBC is busting Olbermann because he didn't inform them prior to donating. He's also a loose cannon and this was probably a good excuse to suspend/can him.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-05 13:37:48

#6

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

In other news, Pelosi really can't let go can she...

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-05 13:38:13

#7

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6641

JohnG@lt wrote:
Is there a difference really? The free political advertising that each group does on air is far more beneficial to 'their side' than any amount of campaign donations. Donating time, donating money, same thing.

I'd agree with that. However it seems hypocritical that Olbermann did exactly what he called out Fox on, and really stupid given his employers attitudes to such things. Although I think they should get rid of him, he just makes the left look bad.

2010-11-05 13:38:31

#8

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6560|Mountains of NC

JohnG@lt wrote:
In other news, Pelosi really can't let go can she...

be funny if she locks the door and refuses to leave

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2010-11-05 13:39:00

#9

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

This is kind of a side issue, but I just thought about it looking at the aforementioned limit to personal donations.

Didn't that recent Supreme Court ruling essentially state that limiting donations is unconstitutional?

2010-11-05 13:40:07

#10

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
This is kind of a side issue, but I just thought about it looking at the aforementioned limit to personal donations.

Didn't that recent Supreme Court ruling essentially state that limiting donations is unconstitutional?

They didn't repeal McCain-Feingold.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-05 13:41:00

#11

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
This is kind of a side issue, but I just thought about it looking at the aforementioned limit to personal donations.

Didn't that recent Supreme Court ruling essentially state that limiting donations is unconstitutional?
They didn't repeal McCain-Feingold.

Well, what I mean is... if the ruling says that donations are equivalent to free speech, shouldn't that make it illegal for the government to limit anyone's ability to donate?

2010-11-05 13:42:37

#12

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
This is kind of a side issue, but I just thought about it looking at the aforementioned limit to personal donations.

Didn't that recent Supreme Court ruling essentially state that limiting donations is unconstitutional?
They didn't repeal McCain-Feingold.
Well, what I mean is... if the ruling says that donations are equivalent to free speech, shouldn't that make it illegal for the government to limit anyone's ability to donate?

Speech is limited.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-05 13:44:23

#13

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

They didn't repeal McCain-Feingold.
Well, what I mean is... if the ruling says that donations are equivalent to free speech, shouldn't that make it illegal for the government to limit anyone's ability to donate?
Speech is limited.

It just seems odd to me. There doesn't seem to be a consistent limit on donations, since the rules differ between what an individual can donate and what an organization can. Also, candidates are limited differently in what they can accept as opposed to an organization.

2010-11-05 13:47:48

#14

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Well, what I mean is... if the ruling says that donations are equivalent to free speech, shouldn't that make it illegal for the government to limit anyone's ability to donate?
Speech is limited.
It just seems odd to me. There doesn't seem to be a consistent limit on donations, since the rules differ between what an individual can donate and what an organization can. Also, candidates are limited differently in what they can accept as opposed to an organization.

I think there are like five laws that deal with campaign finance and they've never been reconciled because bringing up campaign finance reform among politicians is incredibly unpopular They made the rules they play by. If they don't care, I don't see why we should

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-05 13:50:03

#15

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

Speech is limited.
It just seems odd to me. There doesn't seem to be a consistent limit on donations, since the rules differ between what an individual can donate and what an organization can. Also, candidates are limited differently in what they can accept as opposed to an organization.
I think there are like five laws that deal with campaign finance and they've never been reconciled because bringing up campaign finance reform among politicians is incredibly unpopular They made the rules they play by. If they don't care, I don't see why we should

I just kind of feel like it's dumb.

People and corporations should be allowed to donate however much they want to whoever they want. Limiting donations actually just favors the elite even more than an "open market" would, so to speak.

2010-11-05 13:52:04

#16

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

It just seems odd to me. There doesn't seem to be a consistent limit on donations, since the rules differ between what an individual can donate and what an organization can. Also, candidates are limited differently in what they can accept as opposed to an organization.
I think there are like five laws that deal with campaign finance and they've never been reconciled because bringing up campaign finance reform among politicians is incredibly unpopular They made the rules they play by. If they don't care, I don't see why we should
I just kind of feel like it's dumb.

People and corporations should be allowed to donate however much they want to whoever they want. Limiting donations actually just favors the elite even more than an "open market" would, so to speak.

Of course it's dumb. I think all campaign finances should come out of a state pool. All candidates in X race receive the same amount. Or the Canadian version where any party that earned 5% of the vote in the prior election receives their campaign war chest from the taxpayers with no personal donations allowed.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-05 13:53:43

#17

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:

I think there are like five laws that deal with campaign finance and they've never been reconciled because bringing up campaign finance reform among politicians is incredibly unpopular They made the rules they play by. If they don't care, I don't see why we should
I just kind of feel like it's dumb.

People and corporations should be allowed to donate however much they want to whoever they want. Limiting donations actually just favors the elite even more than an "open market" would, so to speak.
Of course it's dumb. I think all campaign finances should come out of a state pool. All candidates in X race receive the same amount. Or the Canadian version where any party that earned 5% of the vote in the prior election receives their campaign war chest from the taxpayers with no personal donations allowed.

Isn't that kind of a "socialist" idea? I figured you would support a more capitalistic arrangement where the market determines funding for each candidate.

2010-11-05 14:03:37

#18

13/f/taiwan: Member; +940|5690

Citizens United vs FEC(2008)

Supreme Court held that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on Political Campaigns. Elena Kagan really dropped the ball on that one.

2010-11-05 14:11:11

#19

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5349|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

I just kind of feel like it's dumb.

People and corporations should be allowed to donate however much they want to whoever they want. Limiting donations actually just favors the elite even more than an "open market" would, so to speak.
Of course it's dumb. I think all campaign finances should come out of a state pool. All candidates in X race receive the same amount. Or the Canadian version where any party that earned 5% of the vote in the prior election receives their campaign war chest from the taxpayers with no personal donations allowed.
Isn't that kind of a "socialist" idea? I figured you would support a more capitalistic arrangement where the market determines funding for each candidate.

Normally, yeah, but not when it comes to politics. They spend other peoples money for a living.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-11-05 14:15:57

#20

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

13/f/taiwan wrote:
Citizens United vs FEC(2008)

Supreme Court held that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on Political Campaigns. Elena Kagan really dropped the ball on that one.

If that's the case, then individuals should be able to as well. It seems a bit one-sided.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-11-05 14:19:47)

2010-11-05 17:45:29

#21

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,973|6623|949

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16535752

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, whose passionate support of liberal views and gleeful denigration of conservative leaders and pundits made him one of TV's most popular and most reviled commentators, was suspended indefinitely Friday when his employer found out he'd been putting his money where his mouth is.

MSNBC said it suspended Olbermann without pay for contributing to the campaigns of three Democratic candidates this election season. Olbermann acknowledged to NBC that he donated $2,400 apiece to the campaigns of Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway and Arizona Reps. Raul Grivalva and Gabrielle Giffords.

NBC News prohibits its employees from working on or donating to political campaigns unless a special exception is granted. Olbermann's bosses did not find out about the donations until after they were made. The website Politico first reported the donations.

interesting...

2010-11-05 18:41:03

#22

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6437|The Land of Scott Walker

I couldn't care less who pays for ads, but how about a fact check requirement in these ads.

2010-11-06 03:49:16

#23

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5228|Cleveland, Ohio

it just shows you muppets how msnbc is EXACTLY what you bitch at Fox for.

oh and he is allowed to make all the donations he wants but has to get approval first. i guess they dont want their employees donating to the nazi party or whatever. its in his contract. he breached it. simple as that. no need for a thread about it,

2010-11-06 04:09:18

#24

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6708

11 Bravo wrote:
it just shows you muppets how msnbc is EXACTLY what you bitch at Fox for.

oh and he is allowed to make all the donations he wants but has to get approval first. i guess they dont want their employees donating to the nazi party or whatever. its in his contract. he breached it. simple as that. no need for a thread about it,

this thread just shows the left media sucks dicks too.

2010-11-06 10:59:02

#25

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6396|North Carolina

11 Bravo wrote:
it just shows you muppets how msnbc is EXACTLY what you bitch at Fox for.

oh and he is allowed to make all the donations he wants but has to get approval first. i guess they dont want their employees donating to the nazi party or whatever. its in his contract. he breached it. simple as that. no need for a thread about it,

The thread is intended to ask whether or not ethics like NBC's are necessary.

Every media source has biases. Why should they even bother pretending that they are objective?

BF2S Forums Media Organizations and Political Donations

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

13/f/taiwan wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

Board footer