Oh shit: Seattle Times Action Shows Limits of Citizens United

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom: none; border-radius: 0.3846em 0.3846em 0em 0em; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]Seattle Times Action Shows Limits of Citizens United[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top: none; border-radius: 0em 0em 0.3846em 0.3846em; background-color: #f4f4f4; box-shadow: 2px 2px 6px #bfbfbf;"]This week the Seattle Times Co. announced that it would run $75,000 worth of independent expenditure ads on behalf of Rob McKenna, the Republican nominee for governor in Washington -- at the company's expense. It is also giving $75,000 of free ad space to the campaign backing a referendum to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

The company says this is an effort to demonstrate the value of print advertising for political campaigns; they hope that these free ads will work so well that other people will pay for them in the future. This is a totally bizarre ad marketing strategy, as noted by Eli Sanders at the Stranger and Derek Thompson at the Atlantic.

In some ways, this is the nightmare scenario that opponents of Citizens United worry about. A media company is using its access to a broad audience to run free ads for a desired candidate, with no ability for federal or state law to stop them.

More at the link!

"In some ways, this is the nightmare scenario"? In some ways?

Giant media corporations, running free ads for candidates who will do their bidding. The only thing they need to worry about is whether their "objectivity" will suffer in the minds of consumers? As if FOX didn't prove the model for this shit.

Wow. Sorry, while they're trying to be "fair and balanced" by donating the same amount of ad space for a good cause (same sex marriage), think about the precedent this will set in the future.

"...no ability for federal or state law to stop them."

PB