> I think a company can issue unlimited press releases saying whatever the company wants to say. But the amount of money they get to spend on political, policy, and perhaps even social advertising, should be limited.
The foundational problem is this. Media companies like CNN and The Wall St Journal are corporations and their business is talking about politics. What does it even mean, then, to restrict how much money they can spend on it? How do you even measure the value of being able to choose which anchor with which viewpoints gets which timeslot, or which story goes on the front page? Or being able to just not report on stories (like media consolidation) that they're not interested in people knowing about?
But if buying a TV network to get airtime for your viewpoint is speech then so is buying airtime from that TV network.
The solution to this isn't to restrict corporations from saying things. It's to make sure that everybody else gets to say things too. So that's things like public financing of elections, and decentralized social networks (in the style of email) so that nobody gets to gatekeep information.
Make it cheaper to reach voters without corporate sponsorship and you erode the corrosive utility in corporate sponsorship. Making it more difficult only does the opposite and makes it worse -- nobody wants Zuckerberg to have the power to determine the President with an algorithm.
> How do you even measure the value of being able to choose which anchor with which viewpoints gets which timeslot, or which story goes on the front page? Or being able to just not report on stories (like media consolidation) that they're not interested in people knowing about?
The value of that should be zero, because the rational response of individuals in the situation you describe (which is basically the situation as it is now) should be to simply stop watching and listening because the media have proven themselves untrustworthy.
The foundational problem is this. Media companies like CNN and The Wall St Journal are corporations and their business is talking about politics. What does it even mean, then, to restrict how much money they can spend on it? How do you even measure the value of being able to choose which anchor with which viewpoints gets which timeslot, or which story goes on the front page? Or being able to just not report on stories (like media consolidation) that they're not interested in people knowing about?
But if buying a TV network to get airtime for your viewpoint is speech then so is buying airtime from that TV network.
The solution to this isn't to restrict corporations from saying things. It's to make sure that everybody else gets to say things too. So that's things like public financing of elections, and decentralized social networks (in the style of email) so that nobody gets to gatekeep information.
Make it cheaper to reach voters without corporate sponsorship and you erode the corrosive utility in corporate sponsorship. Making it more difficult only does the opposite and makes it worse -- nobody wants Zuckerberg to have the power to determine the President with an algorithm.