The Campaign Finance Institute, arguing for a “holistic approach” to the control of undue influence, has invited a debate on this proposal.  Holistic regulation examines the many ways that any particular political interest might pursue influence:  through PACs, 527s, tax-exempt activities, direct individual contributions by persons associated with these enterprises, and so forth.  Any one such activity might be legal, but when viewed along with all others, organized to operate more or less in concert, the influence exerted through them all would become undue—a policy problem. 

    Where might this theory of “holistic” regulation lead?  Progressives, take note:  perhaps to your doorstep.

    Consider the formation of Participant Productions, which has worked with Warner Brothers, among others, to produce “movies with a message.”  Releases have included Good Night and Good Luck (Warner Independent Pictures), and also Syriana (Warner Brothers), each of which involved well-known liberal Democrat George Clooney (a director of the first and as actor in the second).  In producing these films, and also another, North Country, Participant has also had the collaboration of advocacy groups, such as the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Family Violence Prevention Fund.  Participant has also supported the work of political figures:  former Vice President Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

     Participant’s collaboration with Warner Brothers is noteworthy, since Time Warner is the second largest source within the entertainment industry of contributions to candidates and parties, and it is overwhelmingly favorable to Democrats.  Warner’s CEO is Alan Horn, identified by journalist  Eric Alterman as one of the “fundraising giants who have helped establish Hollywood as the first stop for any liberal politician or do-gooder organization.”  Eric Alterman, "The Hollywood Campaign," Atlantic Monthly (Sept. 1, 2004).  Horn, commenting on the advocacy effort, has said of Participant and Warner’s venture: “I know these movies carry more risk than something like the Dukes of Hazzard, but they are movies with a purpose.”  And Time Warner has other means of influence, well placed to support the others:  it also maintains book publishing subsidiaries, one of which publishes Michael Moore  (Dude Where’s My Country), who has become famous for achieving influence through political filmmaking.  This is quite the political joint venture, with a potential for massive influence:  nonprofit advocacy groups working with film-makers who can draw on major stars and who are supported by a major studio headed by a liberal activist.  In no time, many millions in influence have been and will continue to be spent, supplemented by activities of associated PACs and, of course, the contributions and fundraising of individuals associated with this enterprise. 

     A “holistic” approach to influence would certainly have to reckon with so mighty an influence network.  The law is not yet equal to the task, but a minor step in this direction was taken in 2004, when complaints were lodged against Michael Moore’s filmed assault on George Bush.  Moore, faced with the electioneering communication prohibition, suspended his television advertising in the weeks before the election.  This is one among other examples of an established connection between this kind of activity and the influencing of political opinion generally, and of voter choice in particular.  

     And now back to Clooney, who, interviewed about his involvement with political film-making, wisely said:  “the most patriotic thing you can do in our country is question your government.”  He appreciates the elemental proposition that political debate—debate seeking influence—should be open to all wishing to join in.  Commenting on Bill O’Reilly’s attacks on his views, Clooney has said this:  “Fair enough.  They [conservatives] can say what they want.  I can’t demand freedom of speech and then say don’t say bad things about me.  But I’m also not going to stop presenting opposing views.”  

     No, he won’t stop or be stopped, unless faced with the demands, maybe sometime in the future, of “holistic” legal restrictions on political influence.

Bob Bauer