July 8, 1998
Mr. Richard Lewis
2222 Dorothy Avenue
Louisville, Kentucky 40205
Dear Mr. Lewis:
Thank you for your continued interest in issues of vital concern to the
nation. The media influence issue is particularly salient in light of the
ongoing debate in the House of Representatives over the ability of private
citizens, candidates, groups and parties to have a voice in the governing of
our nation.
The voluminous materials you sent on the media’s unique advantage in our
society and the growing prevalence of foreign ownership in that industry
reaffirms my long-held views that they should not be left out of the
campaign finance equation. You are no doubt well-acquainted with section 431
(9)(B)(i) of the federal election campaign finance law which stipulates
that, for purposes of federal regulation, the term “expenditure” does
not include: “any news story,
commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any
broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publican,
unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party,
political committee, or candidate.”
Section 431 (9)(B)(i) makes a distinction where there is no real
difference: the media is extremely powerful by any measure, a “special
interest” by any definition, and heavily engaged in the “issue advocacy” and
“independent expenditure” realms of political persuasion that most editorial
boards find so objectionable when anyone other than a media outlet engages
in it. To illustrate the absurdity of this special exemption the media
enjoys, I frequently cite as an example the fact that if the RNC bought NBC
from GE the FEC would regulate the evening news and, under the
McCain-Feingold “reform” bill, Tom Brokaw could not mention a candidate 60
days before an election. This is patently absurd.
Had the Senate debate on the McCain-Feingold bill advanced to the point
of amendments, among the first I offered would have been one to delete
section 431 (9)(B)(i). Whenever the opportunity presents itself in the
future, I look forward to doing just that. I believe it would be an
enlightening discussion. Indeed, the issue was frequently raised during the
floor debates in 1997 and 1998 and helped to crystallize for Senators and
the C-SPAN viewing audience that the campaign finance debate is, indeed, a
discussion of core constitutional freedom.
Mr. Richard Lewis July 8, 1998 page two
There is ample survey evidence that the American people are quite
amenable to restrictions on the media. I am fond of citing these surveys to
reporters as their newspapers eagerly note polls showing support for
restrictions on everyone else’s ability to participate in our democracy. A
Rasmussen Research survey found that 80 percent of those polled would like
to restrict the way newspapers cover political campaigns. 68 percent believe
that newspaper editorials are more important than a $1000 contribution. 61
percent believe that a candidate favored by reporters will beat a candidate
who raises more money. 42 percent believe that newspapers should be required
to install an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on their editorial
boards. A study by the American Society of Newspaper Editors found that a
majority would require journalists to obtain a license to practice, as
lawyers and doctors currently must. A majority would empower judges to
impose fines for “inaccurate and biased reporting” and would
establish government entities to compel the media to equalize coverage of
controversial issues. Fortunately, the First Amendment precludes such
regulation, but the presence of such an anti- media sentiment should be of
some concern to the press. After all, it was only last year that the Senate
defeated (incredibly, 38 Senators voted for it) a constitutional amendment
to empower the federal and state governments to restrict all expenditures
“by, in support of or in opposition to”
candidates. As the American Civil Liberties Union pointed out, that
broad mandate encompasses the media.
I would urge you to watch the ongoing House campaign finance reform
debate carefully. It has been a stop-and-go debate with a day or two of
campaign finance amendments interrupted by as much as a week of other
legislative business. However, there will be several days of debate in the
next month and it is anticipated that there will be at least one vote on an
amendment to delete the media exemption in FECA, altogether. It promises to
be a vigorous discussion. An amendment to refine the exemption to address
the matter of foreign ownership would be a useful exercise, as well. With
the increased interest on our side of the aisle with the media component in
the campaign finance debate, I would not be surprised if such an amendment
were offered.
Again, thank you for putting the materials together.
Sincerely,
MITCH McCONNELL
UNITED STATES SENATOR
