Supreme Gift to Corporate Media

If you happen to own a major broadcast network, you just had a very good week, thanks to five guys in robes.

Some are calling it "Citizens United on Steroids." This week the Supreme Court, in the case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, struck down caps on donations that individuals can make to candidates or political parties during any two-year election cycle.

If you listened to Amy Goodman's Democracy Now on KSER and KXIR this week you heard extensive coverage and analysis of the Supreme Court decision. If you listened to or watched much of the corporate media outlets you probably heard some headlines but not much in-depth reporting.

There's a simple reason why you won't hear much on corporate media: Money.

You probably know that the 2012 Presidential election was the most expensive election in US history. One study reported that $6-Billion was spent on the 2012 election - that's $700-Million more than any prior election. And, now, 2016 will probably set another record.

So where does all that money go?  Some goes to direct mail, billboards and web advertising and viral marketing. But the lion's share of campaign advertising money goes to broadcasting...corporate owned television stations and networks in particular.

It seems, at election time, everyone complains about the flood of political commercials on TV. Everyone, that is, except the owners of the television stations and networks. That's because it's a financial jackpot for the corporate broadcast owners. These are the same owners, of course, whose news departments either downplay or completely ignore coverage of stories like the latest Supreme Court campaign finance ruling.

Even Republican Senator John McCain was dismayed by the ruling, "I am concerned that today's ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority of the Court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics."

You can read the insightful analysis of Robert Reich on the McCutcheon ruling and what he calls the vicious cycle of wealth and political power here. Maybe "House of Cards" character Francis Underwood is not an exaggeration.

Of  course it's not just this Supreme Court ruling that gets short shrift in the corporate media; there are plenty of other stories, like the Occupy movement or global climate change that receive limited coverage.

The next time you're watching a television newscast and wondering why Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus get so much coverage while supreme court decisions are ignored, just follow the money.

Or listen to Amy Goodman.