Former MSNBC GM Slams Chris Matthews, NYT and 'Media’s Shameful, Inexcusable Distortion' of Citizens United
You don't often see a well-known liberal media member publicly criticizing the liberal media he's a part of.
But when Dan Abrams, the former General Manager of MSNBC and founder of the left-wing Mediaite, trashes his former network - in particular Hardball host Chris Matthews - as well as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other media outlets for their "Shameful, Inexcusable Distortion Of The Supreme Court’s Citizens United Decision," one should take notice:
There are two media myths and inventions that are most commonly cited.
Myth 1: The Court invalidated disclosure requirements in political advertising, thereby allowing donors to remain anonymous.
Wrong. The Court ruled just the opposite and upheld, by an 8-1 vote, the McCain-Feingold requirement of identifying donors.
Myth 2: That the Court’s ruling in Citizens United opened the door to wealthy individuals like Sheldon Adelson to pour millions of dollars into PACs.
Wrong again. The Citizens United ruling had NOTHING to do with the ability of individuals to spend their money to support candidates. That had been decided back in 1976, when the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment protected the right of individuals to make unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates for federal office. In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations and unions were entitled to the same rights. It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that the Swift Boat ads, legally paid for by individuals, soiled John Kerry during the 2004 campaign.
Abrams then cited examples:
On January 9, in a front-page piece on the influence of Newt Gingrich supporter Sheldon Adelson, the Times inaccurately reported that Adelson’s $5 million donation to a pro-Gingrich SuperPAC “underscores” how the Citizens United case, “has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election.” [...]
The Washington Post has done no better. On January 11th, Dana Milbank, writing of Adelson’s $5 million donation to a pro-Gingrich SuperPAC, asserted that it was, “the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision which made such unlimited contributions possible.”
Then Abrams went after his former employer:
It seems this faulty analysis has worn off on MSNBC host Chris Matthews as well, since he, too, regularly misreports the case’s ruling. “Under this new court ruling, Citizens United, your opponent can run a terrible campaign and relentlessly destroy your reputation without putting your fingerprints on the ad,” Matthews said. “You don’t have to say, ‘I’m Mitt Romney and I paid for this ad.’ So now in Iowa, where the people don’t like negative campaigning, you can run the bombing campaign or destroy your opponent without having your face or voice associated with it. That’s what Newt wasn’t aware of. It’s his fault that conservatives like them have gone along with these court decisions, that have allowed big contributors, wealthy people to put unlimited amounts of money into negative campaigns without putting the name of their favorite candidate in the ad.”
This is a double dose of wrong, since the disclosure requirement in the law was upheld and the case had nothing to do with individuals. One might forgive Al Jazeera for getting it wrong and it’s not unusual to see partisan advocates misstate a ruling like this to further a political agenda, but the mainstream American media should have no excuse.
Abrams concluded, "You may disagree with the opinion, you may think that expanding the ability of corporations to fund campaign messaging is a true danger, or just, as I do, that outside money is a major concern for our democratic system but that doesn’t change the fact that the political chattering set ought to be far more concerned and outraged by the indolence, indifference or just bias, that has led to the widespread misinformation by the media about what the court actually considered and ultimately ruled."
Indeed it has thereby allowing the media to unfairly and dishonestly rail against the Super PACs currently supporting the various Republican presidential candidates. But now that their beloved Obama has said that he's just fine with people giving money to a Super PAC backing him, the press are likely going to soften their criticism of wealthy campaign financiers.
Which makes one question the timing of Abrams' editorial.
To be sure, a motivating factor in writing this piece was his father being one of the attorneys that argued the case before the Court on behalf of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
But the media have been guilty of "shameful, inexcusable distortion" of Citizens United since the ruling was first made public in January 2010.
How convenient is it that the founder of one of the nation's most liberal websites, just two days after the President he likely supports gave his blessing to Priorities USA Action, took to his keyboard to excoriate media's coverage of this two year old Supreme Court decision?
Or am I just being too cynical?
*****Update: Original version of this piece named Abrams as managing editor of Mediaite. He's actually the founder.
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Morning in America?
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:05pm.
Perhaps some people are awakening to the terrible danger brought to us by this America hating president and his cohorts in the leftist media.
Liberals are not coordinating
Submitted by John21 on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:12pm.
Liberals are not coordinating the propaganda as well as he would like them to.
Was Dan Abrams at one time a
Submitted by jkwtrading on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:26pm.
Was Dan Abrams at one time a special prosecutor for crimes ? His name rings a bell from Chicago.
Corporations poured money
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:28pm.
Corporations poured money into campaigns before Citizens United, they just funneled it in through a variety of PACs. They still aren't doing it directly, they prefer to do it through bundlers working at the corporations, since its not suspicious. They were legally permitted to do that before Citizens United also.
I disagree with the Citizens United decision, btw, but yes people are misrepresenting the decision to push their agenda. If Obama loses, they'll want to blame Citizens United, no matter how much money Obama raises. They'll just claim that most of his money is from individual donors, and scoff at the idea that his bundlers represent big moneyed interests.
Will Matthews correct himself on the air?
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:42pm.
He owes his audience and the Supreme Court an apology.
Matthews correct himself?
Submitted by KyWriter on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:14pm.
Only when water runs uphill and the sun rises in the west.
or....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:35pm.
if he ever sobers up.
One might forgive Al Jazeera
Submitted by NCfairandbalanced on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:58pm.
"One might forgive Al Jazeera for getting it wrong and it’s not unusual to see partisan advocates misstate a ruling like this to further a political agenda, but the mainstream American media should have no excuse."
Isn't the implication that Dan Abrams is making is that Al Jazeera and MSNBC is different? I thought they had the same ownership, just different names for different hemispheres!
Your thinking small
Submitted by Fredy on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 4:52pm.
Obama has already moved BEYOND the Citizens United case. Obama is going to DIRECTLY co-ordinate the cash collection and focus of his super-pac by using the Presidential Cabinet. This is an illegal, as well as corrupt, action under EXISTING election laws.
This left wing liar, Dan Abrams, knows that Obama is absolutely corrupt in this action and is laying the groundwork for his comming defense of the direct cash payments to Obama's cabinet for favors that fund Obama's campaign.
The Obama administration is the most corrupt administration in the history of the USA.
Cynical? Hardly.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:18pm.
In other words, Abrams is doing this in an effort to protect Obama.
Nothing unusual about that.
(;~/ gary
Oh .. tremendous post there Noel. There will be plenty of opportunity to use this information as the year drags on - although, you may be right, since Obama is in the game, the MSM will abandon the discussion.
There are no coincidences in politics.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 02/08/2012 - 5:33pm.
The timing of this says everything.
The Press Exemption should include flesh and blood people
Submitted by BenDoubleCrossed on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 6:56am.
Employees of media corporations are exempt from campaign laws. I would appreciate if broadcast talking heads and print journalists would explain why their audiences should not enjoy the same exemption?
Before insisting on more people muzzling campaign laws watch these videos
http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/33-sampson
,http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/15-camppolitics
http://www.ij.org/freedomflix/39-azcleanelectionsvideo
and read the Citizens Guide to participating in Federal elections. http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml.
From 1791 to 1886 1st Amendment freedoms of speech, press and assembly were the sole rights of flesh and blood citizens.
From 1886 to 1973 flesh and blood citizens and media corporations enjoyed equal freedoms of speech and the press.
When I was young you did not have to ask anyone permission to participate in politics. You could pool your money with others who shared your views without donation limits or reporting requirements. It was understood that freedom of speech, press and assembly were the rights of flesh and blood citizens. Newspapers enjoyed the right to print and broadcasters the right to speak because they employed people. But people did not have to own newspapers, TV Stations or radio stations to print or speak.
Then, prior to President Nixon’s second term, some of our nation’s largest newspapers found themselves in federal court loosing antitrust suits which accused them of purchasing financially troubled regional newspapers and then pretending to compete with them while rigging prices.
The Newspaper Preservation Act was working its way through congress and was designed to grant antitrust relief to the affected newspapers. Richard Nixon and his, Attorney General, were on record as strongly opposed to the passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act.
A newspaper executive wrote a letter to President Nixon as his re-election approached. The letter reminded President Nixon that the nation’s largest Newspaper chains published in those states that had the largest number of electoral votes. The carefully worded letter reminded President Nixon that it could be difficult to be re-elected without their editorial support.
President Nixon reversed his position and used his political skills to convince Congress to pass the Newspaper Preservation Act.
Following Watergate and reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. The purpose of the new campaign laws was to protect the public from the appearance of corruption.
The newly minted campaign laws should have reprimanded the 4th estate as well as Nixon. Instead the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act exempted corporate media from campaign laws and created the “State Approved Press”. -
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_Preservation_Act_of_1970
From 1974 to present only the commercial media enjoy unrestricted freedom of speech and the press.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) 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 publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
But what is the difference between slanted news stories or editorial opinions and political ads? "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.
Media corporations have denied Buddy Roemer a podium at the GOP Presidential debates despite the fact he is for campaign reforms. The media hypocritically judge the viability of a candidate by how much money he is able to raise while decrying the evil of money in politics, most of which flows to them to purchase campaign ads!
Distributing political ads to the masses is the biggest expense of political campaigns. If the media were to carry political ads, as a public service, it would greatly reduce the need for money in politics.
There are multiple proposed Amendments to the constitution to end corporate personhood and keep money out of politics. But that is only necessary because the 1st Amendment is not a loophole in campaign laws. Campaign laws are corruption of the 1st Amendment.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The National Rifle Association purchased a radio station to get around existing campaign laws. Should citizens and citizens groups have to buy a radio station to enjoy freedom of speech or a newspaper to enjoy freedom of the press?
To restore equal protection under law the press exemption must be extended to citizens and citizens groups! People don’t lose their rights when they associate in groups, whether it’s a corporation, a labor union, a nonprofit organization or even a newspaper. Until campaign laws apply equally to all, we the people are the 99% and media princes, like Colbert, are the 1%.
And if the corporate media won’t defend natural people’s 1st Amendment rights they may lose their own:
Newspapers Have No First Amendment Exemption from Political Spending Reporting Requirements
Eugene Volokh • September 8, 2011 5:46 pm
Because of this, it generally hasn’t been clear whether the media exemption was constitutionally mandated — whether a legislature could, if it wanted to, regulate newspapers’ expenditures related to political campaigns the same way it regulated other expenditures. But Olson v. City of Golden (D. Colo. Sept. 1, 2011) held that such an exemption is not constitutionally mandated.
http://volokh.com/2011/09/08/newspapers-have-no-first-amendment-exemptio...
"Or am I just being too cynical?"
Submitted by JLin on Thu, 02/09/2012 - 11:47am.
Not at all. Clearly this is a clean-up effort to provide cover for The One.
The Communists are past masters at the art of propaganda and disinformation. This is an uphill battle.