Editorial
Front Page - Friday, February 19, 2010
Under Analysisc
(Cold) truth in advertising, New York and D.C. style
Spencer Farris
I took some time away from the Levison Towers recently. With the Midwest under a blanket of snow, anywhere seemed like a better place to be. I called Kathi in the firm’s travel department. She made a few calls, and said that while she couldn’t get us anything extremely warm, we could find something slightly less arctic. Evidently, Kathi has a worse understanding of geography than I do – she sent us to New York.
New York is years ahead of the Midwest in a lot of ways. While I enjoy the laid back atmosphere of home, there is no denying that we are not as advanced as the east coast. We lack meaningful mass transit, and while New York sounds like the tower of Babel, I rarely hear a foreign tongue in my home town.
It should surprise no one (except me) that it is cold in New York this time of year. Freezing cold. Fortunately, my children’s complaints about the cold froze in the air and fell to the ground, unheard.
To further minimize complaints, I tried to stop every few hours and feed the kids – it’s hard to be cranky with a full stomach. Each restaurant had calorie counts for every dish posted, in plain sight. This truth in advertising saved me from Supersizing my fries on at least one occasion, and spared my waistline a dessert or two as well. It’s hard to justify a slice of cheesecake when I can’t lie to myself about how harmless it is.
This made me think about other areas where truth in advertising, or at least a little bit of transparency, would be beneficial. The law is often a mystery surrounded by a riddle – try explaining what is and isn’t hearsay to a nonlawyer. Better yet, watch a law program on TV and then tell a jury why trials take more than an hour to complete. Some truth about what really goes on behind closed law doors seems like the perfect solution.
Given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on corporate campaign “donations,” government is a good place to start. The case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has been called the biggest threat to our democracy in decades. The Supreme Court seemed to be arguing for more openness, saying that government can regulate and require “disclaimers and disclosure,” but not eliminate corporate political speech. What they didn’t say was that disclaimers don’t work – ask a smoker what it says on the side of his cigarette package.
Elected officials should no longer wear suits and ties that allow them to look impartial and blend in with their constituents. NASCAR jumpsuits seem more fitting, covered with the patches and logos of their corporate sponsors.
Corporations themselves would then not need to disclose where their campaign dollars went, and consumers would know to change laundry detergents if they didn’t like the policies of the senator from Proctor and Gamble.
Speaking of the Supreme Court, they could use a little disclosure as well. Justice Scalia and the others who voted to change five decades of precedent with this decision call themselves “strict constructionists,” implying that they try to interpret our Constitution as the Founding Fathers would have, rather than treat it as a living document. Present day multinational corporations did not exist then, and it is hard to fathom that our Founding Fathers aren’t spinning in their graves at the notion of corporations buying elections like a commodity.
Perhaps in the interest of full disclosure, New York will again lead the way. Rather than just tell me the number of calories in my Big Mac, they might start listing how much of the $2.79 price tag is going to political causes. The problem is that the numbers change.
Next spring, imagine that the little known kingdom of Thousand Island is hit by a tariff on exports of its “special sauce.” McDonalds could spring to its aid, cost free. By adding a nickel to each Big Mac sold and funneling that money directly to its elected official, a real lobby to lift the tariff from the tiny islanders could be mounted effortlessly, and perhaps unknowingly, by Big Mac consumers. The Senator from McDonalds could take on the evils of tariffs, knowing that he had the backing of the voters, I mean eaters, of America.
The Citizens United case did not come with the disclaimer that it was an attack on the Constitution. Instead, the Court twisted logic and found that corporations are entitled to the same rights as real people without telling us why an artificially created “person” designed specifically for the purpose of accumulating money and influence should be afforded the same “inalienable rights” as real people.
Inalienable rights are the ones “endowed by the creator,” and regardless of whether you believe that there is a real creator, it doesn’t require much of a “strict construction” to know that the phrase was meant to apply to real people.
At first blush, this decision doesn’t sound too dangerous to democracy, which is why a little truth about the real impact is needed. Check your phone plan and then call your lawmaker before she is sold to the highest bidder.
©2010 Under Analysis, LLC. Under Analysis is a nationally syndicated column of the Levison Group. Spencer Farris is the founding partner of The S.E. Farris Law Firm in St Louis, Missouri. He is fond of long walks on the beach with his favorite corporations, followed by a cozy dinner with them. Comments or criticisms about this column may be sent c/o this newspaper or directly to the Levison Group via email at comments@levisongroup.com.
|
|