The odd mixture of commercial advertising, propaganda and public relations is a phenomenon known as politainment. It is how candidates win elections. It is a bizarre phenomenon, but it has an increasing impact on our political process. That’s part one.
Political ads on Facebook, Twitter, Snap Chat and other social platforms are capturing the energy and attention of voters who are constantly barraged with messages from political candidates. It is impossible to tell who is sponsoring the ads, and that includes the possibility that they come from spoofed accounts that are not based in the United States. Just this past week Facebook shut down several accounts that were based in Iran and Russia. In order to post political content on Facebook you have to go through a process that proves residency in the United States, including a photo ID. Given that I write about the intersection of faith and politics, I had to go through this process which took well over a month. At least Facebook can tell if the accounts are based in the United States. How well this is monitored is an unknown.
Facebook, however, announced last week that it will not police the veracity of political ads on its platform. This makes it possible for any candidate to spread disinformation about competitors without scrutiny. I suppose this is covered under the guarantee of free speech but it is pretty sleazy.
There is another phenomenon at work in election politics. It is called the Illusory Truth Effect. It was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova and Temple Universities. In essence it states there is an increased tendency to believe false information with increased exposure to such false information. In other words, if someone repeats a lie often enough, people start to believe it is true. This has been a cornerstone of the occupant’s political strategy. It was found in a 2017 study that familiarity can overpower rationality. Further, people’s beliefs can be swayed if a proven fact is repeatedly stated as wrong.
This creates a morass of disinformation, half-truths and BS to wade through while trying to determine who to support in this circus we call an election.
Part two in our campaign reality is vulgar amounts of money. Kantar Media CMAG estimates that political ads for the 2020 election could reach $6 billion. Group M, a prominent ad agency, estimates spending for political ads will reach $10 billion. This represents a 59% increase from the 2016 election year when an estimated $6.2 billion was spent (Forbes Magazine).
Figures from the Washington Post show second quarter fundraising for the top five Democratic candidates as follows: Mayor Pete Buttigieg 24.9 million, Former Vice President Joe Biden 22 million, Senator Elizabeth Warren 19.2 million, Senator Bernie Sanders 18 million and Senator Kamala Harris 11.8 million. After that the remaining candidates raised about five million each.
By contrast, the occupant started fundraising immediately after his illegitimate capture of the White House in 2016. He has raised $237 million and the Republican National Convention has kicked in another $346 million.
Candidates across the political spectrum continue to find ways to circumvent stated spending limits and other restrictions created by campaign reform. The laws read like a bad joke. Federal law does not allow corporations and labor unions to donate money directly to candidates or national party committees. It also limits how much money individuals and organizations involved in political action may contribute to political campaigns, politic parties and other FEC-regulated organizations. The combined category limit (individuals, Candidate Committee, PAC contributions, etc.) is less than $100,000. Yet, candidates are raising and spending billions for their campaigns. Big business is in there somewhere. It all smells like week-old fish.
It is not surprising that the candidate who spends the most money wins. These two phenomena make it paramount that we voters do our homework. Voting is a basic civic responsibility. It is also a moral action. We are entrusted with the responsibility to elect a candidate that is qualified for the position, has an ethical stance on critical issues of our day and cares about the larger world community and not just the rich people who make this world go around.
Imagine an election cycle where everyone gets the same amount of money to run their campaign, pick an amount under a million dollars. They would spend that money to focus on their message and only their message. There would be guidelines about smearing other candidates and most of their staff would be engaged in discovering the facts about other candidates and not making up crap to help their numbers. Imagine that candidates could raise as much money as they wanted, but it would all benefit charities that help the poor and care for, say, migrant children in concentration camps at the border. The candidates would be rewarded for how much money they raised for charity, not how much they raised for their campaigns. Imagine a quid pro quo that actually benefited people and not political BS. It would be a beautiful thing.
If concern for others were the guiding principle for elections, perhaps we wouldn’t have someone with the IQ of an eggplant and a bad comb over sitting in the Oval Office making us the laughing stock of the world.
The Irreverent Reverend 