Respect Authority

Alright, let me preface this (undoubtedly-going-to-be-long) post by saying I don’t watch political commercials. In fact, I watch very few commercials at all, thanks in large part to the magnificent invention of DVR, which is in my eyes on par with creations like electricity and microwavable breakfast sandwiches. But when I do catch political ads—the loud voice-overs, the poorly done slideshows, the requisite pull-quotes—I find myself actually less inclined to vote for whoever is being promoted, simply because I’d prefer my elected leaders know better than to annoy the shit out of me.

That said, I understand that not everyone is quite so attentive. Rather, for some, the mere mention of a political candidate might be enough to sink the moniker in their psyche so irreversibly that come election day they vote without thinking, without realizing the John Smith whose box they just checked actually denies the Holocaust, hates black people and kills puppies in his spare time.

So I imagine it is with these people in mind that outrage has erupted over the Supreme Court’s decision this week to strike down decades-old limits on corporate political expenditures, thereby permitting businesses and unions to spend freely on commercials for or against political candidates.

Some companies and union leaders have already said they will take advantage of the new freedom to participate more directly in this year’s congressional campaign, while others are perhaps waiting for the hubbub to die down before admitting their own undeniable special interests. I have no doubt that America’s largest corporations, along with its largest unions, are thrilled to be able to put their mountains of cash to use pushing candidates whose interests and policies align with their own. Even if said companies are still restricted from direct contributions to candidates (as they have been for more than a century), and even if any political messages created by corporations or unions must be disclosed as such. Undeniably, this is a big week for the idea of money as power.

But here’s my issue, and bear with me. Wal-Mart (for example) by virtue of being Wal-Mart, can advertise approximately 900 billion more times a day than, say, John’s Feed Store. In fact, one is bombarded on a daily basis with advertisements from major companies meant to make us forget that there are indeed other companies, with the same products/services/capabilities, out there. I see more commercials for Citigroup than Banco Popular, McDonald’s than Five Guys and Meow Mix than Krasdale-brand generic cat food. Such is the nature of capitalism.

When it comes to your average commercial—designed to sell a consumer something the advertiser wants them to pay for—consumers are in a tug of war between knowing that what they’re seeing is biased, and being compelled by that message anyway. In the Mad Men era, this tug of war was less pronounced: ads were a novelty in and of themselves, and wowing Americans with the first-ever lawn mower, toaster oven or car was as easily done as said. These days, with the proliferation of advertising, and consumers’ ever-increasing awareness of their own role in this dynamic, it has become more difficult to maintain this wall, to get past Americans’ knowledge and subsequent resistance to being convinced. The “bandwagon” and “testimonial” advertising approaches have been replaced with “wink” ads, which  give a subtle yet significant nod to the fact that people know they’re being sold to, or even more bizarre campaigns that rely as much on viral popularity as actually mentioning or showing anything intended for purchase (oh how I loved those Quizno’s hamsters).

In other words, regardless of how the relationship between advertiser and consumer has played out over the last few decades, there is a tacit understanding that Americans are expected to make educated decisions on what to buy and from whom, regardless of any disparity in the frequency of ads from Wal-Mart versus John’s Feed Store. Furthermore, if the Wal-Mart next door to the John’s Feed Store sells exactly the same products but commands seven times the business, John is free to gripe about the unfairness of competing with a major player with major dollars, but has absolutely no recourse to argue that Wal-Mart shouldn’t be allowed to advertise as much as it does, or should be forced to advertise on a playing field commensurate with even its smallest competitors.

So where do political candidates fit in? Despite the fact that a 20-pound bag of fertilizer isn’t the same as, say, the governorship of New York, I feel that the same principle applies. The onus, with respect to advertising, is not on the company to ensure that their commercials are received in a fair and balanced way; the onus is on the American people to absorb what they’re seeing, put it in context and make educated decisions. In other words, if I can see eight commercials for Pizza Hut in a week and then, come Saturday, walk across the street and buy a slice from my local pizzeria, it’s because I’ve decided to enjoy the culinary genius that is pizza and have therefore done the research necessary to make a decision that will best please all facets of my pizza-eating self, namely taste buds and wallet. Similarly, if I see eight commercials for a political candidate and then, come election day, decide to vote for someone else, it should be because I’ve decided to enjoy the democratic genius that is voting and have therefore done the research necessary to make a decision that will best please all facets of my American self.

There are some who would argue, and with good reason, that Americans are too stupid to be trusted to think this way. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that educated decision-making is not this country’s forte. I certainly understand this point, and I don’t necessarily doubt that a good many Americans would and do vote for political office based on the candidates that have best managed to insert themselves in the media fray, the same way millions of Americans contribute to Wal-Mart’s status as one of the largest companies in the world. We are, in many scenarios, sheep.

But when you begin making laws for the explicit purpose of coddling people, you are on a slippery slope. Under the new rules, commercials’ backers are still required to disclose their backing. In other words, at the end of any advertisement for gubernatorial candidate Joe Blow will be a “This message was brought to you by Wal-Mart.” If this isn’t enough for people to comprehend the inherent bias behind said advertisement, then I am far more concerned about the intelligence of our population than I am about the corrupting influence of unions or large corporations. In my eyes, the unwillingness of the average American to educate him or herself on political candidates and their views before voting—to say nothing of the fact that most Americans don’t even vote—is a far greater threat to democracy than the implications of this week’s Supreme Court ruling. If people can’t discern that a commercial for a political candidate, spliced in between ads for life insurance and Taco Bell’s “Fourthmeal,” should be taken with a grain of salt, then America is in a lot of trouble.

I would much rather exorcise our frustration with the political system by addressing this apathy on the part of the general public than lambaste Wal-Mart, or whomever, for doing exactly what a large company in a capitalist country is supposed to do—look out for its own interests.

There are other caveats worth touching on: the old rules, where corporations and unions were restricted in their ability to advertise on behalf of candidates, exempted companies like News Corp. or Cablevision, who own newspapers and are free to endorse or slam candidates in their respective publications, if not on television. Even the incident that sparked the Supreme Court case—where a corporate-funded “documentary” disparaging then-candidate Hillary Clinton wasn’t allowed to air near election time—seems questionable. Had Michael Moore made the same movie, I suspect he would have had little trouble getting it on the air, because he is a wealthy individual with biases as opposed to a wealthy company with special interests.

None of this is to say that I don’t understand people’s concerns. After all, this is America in 2010, when advertisements are increasingly difficult to distinguish from otherwise editorial content. Though we often assume we can tell the difference, I found myself during a recent episode of 30 Rock wondering whether a passing reference to Subway was paid for or not. The line is already blurry, and throwing the door open to extend that blurriness into the political sphere is indeed dangerous territory.

But so is allowing the government to tell Americans what they can and can’t hear, read, see or watch. If Wal-Mart can’t sponsor the publication of a book condemning Barack Obama simply because an election is 30 days away, how long is it before a person can’t? And what’s the difference? The government is already, in my opinion, on a slippery slope: New York City, in particular, with its recent attention to trans fats, calorie counts, salt content and even beverage choice, is on a fast track to becoming a nanny state. Our status as a world power, and a country of intelligent and educated people, is contingent on our willingness to better ourselves by seeking out information whenever we can, by taking advantage of the many and ever-growing sources of knowledge available to us.

In the end, I too am worried about what this new ruling means, and not only because I’m upset by the threat of even more annoying political commercials. But I’m more worried about what the decision, and the backlash against it, suggest about America, or Americans. If even the most important of our judgments are based on the frequency with which we are bombarded by certain images, words or names, then there’s even less hope for this country than I thought.