Running for Congress:

Here are some fun facts (from Common Cause):

Of the 390 incumbents running in the House of Representatives this year, 383 of them-98 percent-were re-elected on November 5. In the Senate, 24 of the 29 incumbents won their reelection bids-a reelection rate of 83 percent.

(Through Sept. 30, 2000--so at the point where the data collection ends there were still 5 + weeks left until election day):

• U.S. House (of representatives) winners had a 4-to-1 advantage in average spending--about a $1 million + to $250,000 advantage.
• Incumbents: 382 won their congressional races, while 8 lost. The losers spent an average $500,000 more than winners. So occasionally, winners don't spend the most money--at least 8 out of 390 spent less. This means essentially that whoever is spending the most wins, though.
• Challengers, that is the non-incumbents, challenging for the congressional seat: 4 of them won (spending an average of $1 million); 297 lost (spending an average of $165,000).
• Open seats (seats where the incumbent wasn't running for re-election): winners spent on average $1 million, the losers spent on average $600,000.
• All together, through Sept. 30--again, five weeks before the election--house candidates from two major parties had spent $391.5 million.

In the U.S. Senate:

• Incumbent losers (there were 4 of them) outspent incumbent winners (24 of these) by $8.5 million to $5 million. Why?
• The challengers: There were four winners (that is, they beat the incumbents), and they spent an average of $5.6 million; the losers (24 of these) spent an average of $1.8 million.
• Open seats (where incumbent wasn't running): Winners spent on average $6.2 million, losers $5.3 million.
• Through September 30, U.S. Senate candidates from the two major parties had spent a total of $226 million (keep in mind, there were only 34 of them).

That was 2000. Take a look at the most expensive races from 2004 and 2006. Here are the advantages for the incumbents. Incumbents outspent challengers about 4 to 1 in the house; 3 to 1 in the Senate. Pretty good track records for re-election, too.

What does all this mean? It means that money wins elections. But how is that money spent? Much of it is spent on television ads that, while obviously benefiting media outlets (because they get paid to air them), also comes in the form of deceptive negative campaign commercials that do little to actually inform, but in many cases misinform. Check out this one about Hillary Clinton. Here's part of the smear campaign against John Kerry in 2004 (here's another ad. You can read about the 'Swift Boat Veterans for truth' campaign at sourcewatch--it was part of an orchestrated campaign to smear Kerry where he had a clear advantage over Bush--he served in Vietnam). It also means that incumbents have an easier time raising money. Why? How do politicians get their money? From you and me? Or from large corporations seeking favors from legislators and others? Who was the largest campaign contributor in the 2002 elections? The broadcasting industry. See how much they spent--in total, more than $68 million to lobby Congress in a 4-year period, and over $13 million in campaign contributions. Are politicians buying their way into office, or selling the office to private industry? Does it matter?

So, corporations do this because of their longstanding commitment to democratic process and principles, right? Because as good corporate citizens, they support an America where even the weakest voices can be heard. Right? Because they can use their wealth and a small portion of their profit to give back to the system that has allowed their executives and stockholders to make tidy fortunes, while still being eligible for social security benefits in retirement. Right?

Or, if you're a cynic, you might think they're investing in the horse they think is going to win, and the donations they make are investments in an administration that might return their generous gifts in the form of less regulation for their industry (think of the Mad Cow disease and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's reluctance to 'beef up' meat inspection, or the Environmental Protection Agency (ahem, created to protect the American Public from environmental risks and unscrupulous polluters) and White House efforts to de-categorize mercury as a highly-regulated toxin and relieve coal-fired power plants of the need to regulate mercury emissions, despite their harmful health effects), more tax breaks and tax credits, direct subsidies or gifts from the government, and other forms of giving. (by the way, here's some good use of imagery and propaganda from the left wing side). A couple million invested in an election could save or generate billions later on. The health insurance industry will receive $12 billion (that's 9 zeros ....) to help it develop prescription drug and managed care plans that can compete with Medicare for the elderly, the rationale being that we know that the private sector can provide services much more efficiently (so why do they need the $12 billion to compete??).

Why, do you think? Consider this: How do politicians spend the campaign donations they get? What do they need to get elected? If you guessed commercials, congratulations. Commercials are expensive, especially well-produced ones. The candidates with the most mainstream media coverage have better name recognition, and are better able to frame the election debates. If campaign finance reform passes, then the corporations will have limits put on how much they can contribute. The mass media will also lose (partially) an important source of revenue--commercial advertising during election years. So politicians need money, because recent history suggests that the ones with the most money win. Investigative journalist Greg Palast calls this 'the best democracy money can buy.' The Bush campaign spent over $200 million to put him in the White House in 2000, and that was with the slimmest of margins: 1 vote (that is, he lost the general election by 500,000 votes, and when the Florida vote was disputed, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stop the Florida recount and declare Bush president. ). Corporations provide money, but they expect favors in return. Media companies might expect that the campaign finance reform that gets passed doesn't hurt their revenue streams too much. It turns out to be a pretty good investment in many cases--a few million now and tens or hundreds of millions in tax breaks, merger opportunities, etc., later.

You might want to think through how politicians, corporations and the media all reinforce each others' positions of privilege.

President Bush on May 21, 2004, presided over the first campaign fundraising event of the 2004 election campaign. 7,500 donors were present, and he raised $22 million . . .

. . . . That was a ways back. The Bush Administration assembled a fundraising machine unparalleled in political history. The total raised, according to opensecrets.org, in the presidential race for 2004 was over $880 million. By comparison, the 1976 election cost $176 million. Bush's Campaign raised over $367 million in direct funds. Challenger John Kerry did pretty well, too--almost $326 million. And then came Barack Obama, who has broken all previous records. So clearly fundraising isn't just a partisan issue pitting democrats and republicans against one another.

And for all of this money, from both republicans and democrats, what did we get? Enlightened debate on policy differences, the issues of the day? Impassioned, non-scripted answers to questions posed by 'average' Americans and reporters serving the public interest in the name of democracy? Or TV smear campaigns? National networks providing a public forum to help American citizens make informed decisions? Or a horse race? Who is served by a TV-driven campaign? Americans? Democracy? Those with the most money? Media corporations?

Media as a social problem and a window on social problems

Is bias in the news media a social problem?

Use the framework:

• Is it a problem?
• Is it social?
• Who's harmed? Who benefits? Think in terms not only of individuals, but groups (e.g., by race, age, gender, social class, nationality), organizations, etc.
• Who has the power to define the terms of the debate? Who can 'socially construct' the problem of bias?
  • As a liberal bias (how is this argument made?)
  • as a conservative bias (how is this argument made?)
• Nagging questions-what about media censorship, stories that aren't covered? Why aren't they covered?
• Corporate/private media and the propaganda filter-is this about capitalism and consumption?
  • The informed electorate issue-how do people decide who to vote for? How do they acquire information about what social problems exist and who they harm?
  • What are the consequences?
    • For democracy, informed citizenry
    • Why do so few people vote? Why does social class predict voting behavior?
    • Increasing concentration of media-more advertising, less diversity of viewpoints-so what??
    • Do media reflect broad consumer preferences-think about your news media assignments-whose views are represented? Whose aren't?
      • Who should do something about it? (if we decide it's a problem)