Forget the polls and the horserace for a second. In this election season, the big winners will be big media.
As most people should know–but media don’t tell you very often–much of the money that flows into and around the campaigns is used to buy advertising. Which means that television and radio stations make a lot of money during the campaign season.
There are attempts to shine a light on this arrangement–such as the effort to make TV stations post advertising data online (something that–surprise, surprise!–TV stations don’t care for).
That’s what made this exchange on public television’s Nightly Business Report (4/2/12) revealing, in more than one sense. Host Tom Hudson and reporter Gregg Greenberg of TheStreet.com were talking about investment strategies:
HUDSON: What about Gannett, GCI, probably best known for USA Today but also owns a lot of TV stations. And this stock meantime is not necessarily out of favor but it hasn’t rallied as sharply as the markets. It has kind of flat lined here in the mid teens.
GREENBERG: Well, the sector is out of favor. Everyone keeps saying that newspapers are going to go the way of buggy whips. And when people think about Gannett, they think about USA Today and those lovely pie charts when they stay at Holiday Inns and hotels across the country. But Gannett also owns TV stations. And TV stations are a very good asset in election years, with all that super PAC money buying commercials. So that’s why Gannett had had actually a very good first quarter. It was up about 16 percent and a lot of people say it can go higher, despite being an out-of-favor sector.
HUDSON: All right, of course, election year with those TV ads.
There it is–a straightforward explanation of why campaigns are good news for media companies. It’s rare to see that on television. It’s strange that it would come up on a public television discussion about investment strategies, but something is better than nothing.
and in related news, the ny times reports:
Reversing a decades-old rule, a federal appeals court said on Thursday that public television and radio stations could not be prohibited from broadcasting paid political advertisements.
The ruling could prompt some noncommercial stations to start including ads from candidates and political action committees on their broadcasts, just as commercial stations do. Hundreds of millions of dollars are expected to be spent on advertising in the prelude to the elections this fall.
The ruling startled the television industry when it was issued on Thursday, in part because the case before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially involved ads bought by corporations, not candidates.
The court said on Thursday that the ban on political ads was unconstitutional, but it upheld the ban on ads for “goods and services by for-profit entities.”Â
We agree that Big Media is a winner.
However, we look at the situation within a collective frame of reference—this, from the point of view that the ONLY candidate and the ONLY winner is the Privileged Class. Republicans and/or democrats simply take turns at the helm.
Within the Privileged Class are what we refer to as the Big Six—Big Business, Big Politics and Big Media in their perpetual biennial quest to use Big Six Wealth, Power and Privilege to gain or maintain Big Six Control over Big Government and Big Legal…often by invoking Big Religion in the process.
OKJack„¢Group„¢
Middle and Working Class Disabled Veterans„¢
We Paid the Dues that Aren’t Required!„¢
P.S. We once encountered a grad school professor who looked upon taking the helm as a necessarily topsy-turvy affair. That is, the republicans push and pull the country over as far to the right as possible, followed by the democrats who do likewise as far to the left as possible (not necessarily in that order, of course). So, in this professor’s considered opinion, the country never sinks—but rather the ship is righted (or “lefted” as the case may be) just in time for another full tilt one way or the other. Naturally, the professor didn’t contemplate that the great wave of the late 1920’s and 1930’s would bear down on the ship, beginning in late 2007.
big media, big politics, big corporations,big military, big police, it’s all controlled by big money which means little people have no power over the system and that little vote every now and then is practically meaningless. what we need is big occupations and big changes to the system.
Ambitious corporations might thus profit by investing in the publicly traded stocks of media companies while directing political advertising to them in favor of candidates and measures that support their political objectives. IMHO this is a clever form of insider trading, as well as gaming the political system. By these forms of domination, corporations vote, and vote more than once, when they should not vote at all, and thus corrupt political processes intended to serve individuals. Long past due to overturn some Supreme Court mistakes.
I may not be an ” ordinary Joe “but I have always questioned the effectiveness on people of the massive amounts of money spent on Radio Tv adds in an election cycle.Show me a commercial a 100 times a day Showing Mitt or Obama bloviating, and I see it as exactly what it is……..A bullshit campaign commercial.On me it is largely a waste of money.Is it possible more feel this way?Is it possible that Mitt and Barrack do not get the fact that millions are spent to keep add man working and little else?I wonder what moron has had his mind changed by a Tv commercial.I actually laugh at the out of context soundbites used by both sides.Who believes this rot?I would like Mitt and Bam to hire SNL to do all their commercials.Put the spark of laughter back where it belongs.As million go down the PR drain.
michael e – You and I may be smart enough not to buy the BS in political ads. Sadly, too many uneducated and unthinking people DO believe what they see and hear in those ads. They are effective because of their appeal to emotion, usually anger or fear. And those emotions tend to, more often than not, trump logic and reason. If this wasn’t an effective tactic, businesses and politicians wouldn’t dump billions of dollars into advertising. It’s a sad commentary on the general public.
You know TD logic ,and the importance that those running these campaigns puts on this stuff(as well as the money spent)tells me you are right.I just cant see it.A commercial of Mitt yucking it up surrounded by woman saying he cares that cost 50 grand …..Are there really people out there saying “see he cares”?Or Obama shaking a guys hand on an oil rig elicits shouts of “see he is on top of the gas problem”?Yeah for me it is a perfect time for a pee break, and to grab a bag of Pretzels and a beer.Fifty grand well spent.Or as well spent as theses campaigns seem to be capable of.
The citizens should occupy the airwaves which are our commons given away to the 1% to sell us things we don’t need, make us vain, and to indoctrinate us to like the rich and/or want to be rich some day (Horatio Alger Myth, esp. true in present time USA). Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would be a good start…
Free spirit I love the names Dems give to things.Fairness doctrine…. means we take over and tell you how to run your business.In this instance freedom of speech.What do you call rape…..Free rights for all peoples to free access and entrance?What citizens should occupy the airwaves?The evangelicals?Those that believe in sharia law?The Black panthers?Or how about the liberal elitists who were the first to actually say they wanted to occupy the airwaves….for the good of us all of course.You know who is the real scary enemy…….the 7 %.The seven percent of radical liberals who want to pull the country down because they believe it needs to be remade.Those who dislike and apologize for this country.Who think the constitution is out dated.Even your name fits that liberal penchant for twisting words..FREESPIRIT……You are as far from a free spirit as one can get.You want to tell us all how to live by taking over -and bullying everyone to live as YOU see fit.Those so called 1% at least pay to get their message across.You want to steal it.Typical.When was the last time you thanked the top percent for paying 87% of the bill?Shit if a girl took me out and paid 87% Id thank her.You would try to convince her she is scum because she didn’t pick it all up.After all…she had all the breaks in life right?
in 2009, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 36.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes.
looking at the rates paid…the very top 1 tenth of 1% paid an effective tax rate of 17%…mere millionaires paid 24%. check that out: the ultra rich pay a lower rate than the rest of the top 1%.
mitt romney’s latest tax return showed he paid a rate a bit under 14%.
Woodward we call this Buffet math.The idiocy that he pays less than his secretary.Though when she retires -and lives on dividends ,their rate will be near the same.He will of course pay more.Hundreds of millions when he moves assets (you forgot that).And a 50% death tax(forgot that too).The head of google this year took a salary of one dollar.He lives off of investments that the government allows…. because it helps them on the back end.When he clocks out of google he will pay the government 28-100 million!!!!(Um you forgot that as well)The house sets the rules and always wins Woodward.You are stating tax figures but leaving out all the guts of the matter.Remember this truth….. the real tax that amy corporation pays(all taxes that touch each and every dollar with devaluation and inflation factored in ( is close to 70 cents on a dollar.)I always make the joke that if the government allows me to invest in a bridge for 100k ,or pay them 100k in taxes I will take the bridge.To you that makes my effective tax rate …ZERO.No one buy this crap anymore.Try a new spin.Cut it however you want(the pie)The top percentage of people pay 87% of taxes while the bottom 50% pay nothing…or actually receive more back in Fed taxes.As far as allowed government tax shelters and investments that plain and simple keep this government afloat, I would wager the top people pay near 100% of that.I know wealthy people.I have never known anyone who in real numbers lives as you say we do.Money OUT is usually in the neighborhood of 40-50%.Plain and simple.When your wife wants the bathroom redone and goes for that money- it is gone.Now if you want to prove to me that i still have it Im listening.
“The top percentage of people pay 87% of taxes while the bottom 50% pay nothing”
this is utterly false….
my source for this statement [“in 2009, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 36.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes.”] is the anti tax group the tax foundation.
what’s your source for this statement [the real tax that any corporation pays(all taxes that touch each and every dollar with devaluation and inflation factored in ( is close to 70 cents on a dollar.]?
————-
the person paying himself a dollar this year is mark zuckerberg the head of facebook, not google [larry paige already pays himself $1] and the reason he’s doing that: he’ll own zero income tax and the corporation will get a big tax refund from the government[$500 million against $1 billion in profits]
his future possible personal tax bill will depend on the laws concerning stock options if after he acquires additional facebook stock then sells some
his estimated personal worth after facebook goes public could be as high as $28 billion.
ps
i’ve read one person who thinks zuckerburg’s stock option tax bill could anywhere from $1 to $2 billion dollars once you add in california’s share.
even $2 billion on a $28 billion payday equals a 7% tax bill
nice work if you can get it
the average americian paid 27.9 % of their total income in total taxes [federal, state, local, property, sales, etc]
on average the bottom 20% paid 17.4%, the three middle quintiles paid an average of 25% and the top 20% paid a bit under 30%
full data set here:
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2012/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america.php
It looks like michael e has managed to deflect this blog from its original message. While I appreciate woodword’s response to blatant lies, let me return to the point that the extraction of huge political advertising costs by media is pernicious.
The airwaves belong to the people, not to the corporate communications media. We, the people, should require that free air time be given to candidates for political office. By reducing the amounts that candidates must raise, they will be less beholden to deep-pocket donors who usually extract favors when the candidates are elected. Of course, details would have to be worked out, like who is a legitimate candidate (meeting requirements for acceptance on ballots would seem to work) and how much time should be given, but raising these technical issues should not preclude agreeing on the principle.
Thanks I did mean zuckermann not Google…..Now you are crying about getting two billion dollars for doing nothing.Literally nothing.For money you have already taxed in any number of ways coming and going(that is what I am talking about in the true taxation of corporations.You mentioned a few of the real taxes every American pays in real money–including corporations who do it on a much bigger scale.But for now we will stay on Fed taxes)………AND you will take 50% off the top when he dies by the way.Money already taxed twice!It is like a credit card.By the end of his life what do you suppose he will of paid in real taxes.7%?BUUUUUUULLLLLLLLSHIIIIITT!Your damn right it is good work if you can get it.Government that is.And I said the top percentage pay 87%.Not the top ONE percent.But how amazing that the top 1% pays going on 40% of the total.Amazing.And the bottom 50% pays how much?Near zero in federal taxes.The idea of all the hidden taxes that every dollar passes through is well known and taught in most schools.if I by a pack of gum with one dollar,I have been taxed on that dollar when I made it.The gum has been taxed and I absorb that as well.The gum company has been taxed and that is passed on to me.Every machine that made the gum has been taxed.Every person who works on the gum have taxes taken off the top,transferred to their salaries transferred to cost …to me.Electricity for the factory.On and on and on.it could probably wrap around the world twice.And your only idea is to take more.Ever more.I wish you could answer one simple question.How much should the person who took all the risks, and did all the work to earn a million(and paid taxes all along the way)- pay to the taxman with the gun to his head who has done NOTHING to earn it?30%,40,50,60,70,80,or 90 or 100% of the total?And on his death ,what is fair for what is left of that- to give to the undertaker with the gold tooth removing gear?50%?Philosophically speaking ?
Old saying.Give a pig a finger and he takes a knuckle.The end of Obamas dream is a country changed from a country of creation to a “user”country.Where government runs all areas of your existence.Why would anyone want that?
What we need is a highly organized mass campaign to boycott all politicians who advertise on radio/TV. If you advertise, your money is presumed dirty and you do not get our vote.
Watermia
Huh????So we want to silence people as a form of???Im at a loss
a bit more on the facebook tax dodge
Under current rules companies can lower their tax bill by deducting the full value of stock options on the day executives cash them in, which is often a much higher figure then what the executives originally paid. ”‚
When Facebook becomes a public company later this year, the stock option deduction will save the company an estimated $3 billion on taxes, including an immediate $500 million IRS refund of the taxes it has paid during the last two years.
nice work if you can get it.
Government allows it.Just like Trump changes the odds on his slots at will ,for his benefit.The house always wins.
@Michael E – If I understand your position correctly, is is that the government, our government collects taxes on goods and services but that the government has done no work to deserve the income it receives from those taxes. Is that correct? What I take from this quote “pay to the taxman with the gun to his head who has done NOTHING to earn it?” is that you believe the “taxman”, which is ostensibly the US Government, has done nothing to earn those taxes, and that there is no exchange of value that the government offers it’s citizens for the taxes that it takes “with a gun”.
If this, in fact, your position, I would encourage you take stock, today of all days, in what you receive from the “taxman”. Asks yourself “Could I live without roads? Could I live without sewers? Could I live without the men and women in uniform who give their lives everyday for my safety, for my children’s future? Could I live without the vast and complicated infrastructure that surrounds and protects me like hospitals, firemen, policemen, engineering corps, EMT’s, and the like? I’m going to take a guess that you don’t consider them part of the government, but they are. You may find the role of government intrusive and that is your right but our taxes pay for more infrastructure than you could ever wrap your mind around and none of the money that anyone has ever made in this country wasn’t, in some part, made with the help of that very infrastructure.
@ the original article – Perhaps I’m the last one to come to this knowledge but it seems to me that because the big media companies make so much money from the campaigns there is a direct conflict of interest.
The conflict stems from the fact that there is no way for them to be objective towards their clients. There is no way for real political discourse to happen if there is no place for that discourse that isn’t for sale.
I know I will be disregarded for saying this because I’m of French descent but I happen to know a bit about the French system, and while it is not perfect, they have a very important rule in place that ensures all candidates have the same amount of airtime on the main TV stations. I don’t want to take food out of the mouths of the poor US media moguls but, in the name of fairness, it seems to me, we should set up something similar, some way in which, alternative viewpoints can be heard, and influence the discussion. There is precedent in the law. Airwaves are public space and we do have mandated public space laws.
How inconvenient could it be to set aside 1 hour a week on every channel for politics? Real unadulterated politics.