Yesterday's Supreme Court Ruling

This is not directly related to my ongoing study of the social media job market.

People are freaking out about corporations being able to dominate campaign financing. Washington is already controlled by corporate interests, so this makes matters much worse for those of us who think that healthcare companies and major banks (to name just a few) have had too much influence on recent policy.

Credit card companies can charge whatever they want, major banks can get handouts from the government, and the healthcare bill gets modified until it is so beneficial to healthcare companies that their stocks have soared. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling seems to promise that we will only see more of this in the future, when political campaigns are even more representative of corporate funding and politicians are even more indebted to corporate interests.

Online movements have already emerged as people hope to overturn the ruling. As good as that might be, I'm not optimistic. Rather, I've begun to ponder if there's another way around this predicament of corporate funding. What if corporate funding, regardless of how much there is, was not able to play such a major role in campaigns?

I should mention that there are still limits on how much corporations can give directly to campaigns, but that is to say nothing of privately funded advertisements that are not produced by the campaigns. This is in my opinion, a technicality, but nevertheless true.

However, back to my main thought. In the age of the internet, promotion is FREE. Go on Facebook MySpace, Twitter, whatever. Put yourself out there and get spread by word of mouth. This is by no means an easy way to get public recognition and support, but it is nevertheless possible, and the last I checked more people are getting access to the internet and these websites every day.

There's also the promise of online fundraising, which worked out remarkably for Howard Dean in 2004, Ron Paul in 2008, and obviously Barack Obama in 2008. Even if corporations blow a ludicrous amount of money on campaign donations, average citizens from all over the country can get their money to charismatic candidates with an appealing message more efficiently than ever.

But online fundraising is also a deviation from my main point. I get notifications of some friend of a friend who is an aspiring musician/artist/writer etc. on a regular basis and it costs them absolutely nothing. I could honestly give a shit about half of what I see, but the recognition is there nonetheless. What if these notifications were for candidates for public office?

Online marketing has been an integral part of political campaigns for years now, but I am arguing that it should be EVERYTHING. All communication and debate should just be done over the internet, and popular candidates will get exposure by getting more fans on Facebook, Twitter followers, etc.

It shouldn't cost money to communicate a political message, and candidates without money shouldn't be at a disadvantage. Corporations will use their money to run TV and radio ads, and for the time being this will be effective because the older generations still use these mediums.

I only watch TV I've recorded, and I'll listen to Satellite radio if anything. I can get by without seeing these ads, and I'm not alone. TV and radio need to be destroyed because they are antidemocratic. I have much more control of what is marketed to me than my parents ever had.

If every single person in this country used the internet, and particularly social media networks, as their primary source of political news, the conversation would be open in a way that it wasn't before, and all the money in the world wouldn't be able to keep people from communicating facts. Of course, every single person is not utilizing social media, but it should nevertheless be a goal for this country.

If social media was truly ubiquitous, and all public political discussions were done over the internet, I would evaluate candidates in the following ways.

First, I would take references from personal contacts seriously. For example, if I am hearing about someone running for the office in Michigan, I would like to know what my friend from Grosse Pointe thinks of the candidate. He is a smart person whose opinion I trust, and I otherwise have very little understanding of current events within the sate of Michigan.

Or if I am evaluating a candidate that will be representing my own state or district, I'm still going to want to know what people in my community think, and it will be much easier to have this communicated in an online public forum such as a Facebook group. Within my own community, I have an idea of what people I would or would not disagree with, but there are still plenty of voices that I would likely never hear offline because it is not realistic for everyone to get together in person for a political discussion.

Another way of finding out what candidates to consider is to see what candidates are the most popular, what the motivations of their supporters are, and where these supporters live (not their addresses, just a regional estimation). Right now, one of the most popular politicians on the internet is Sarah Palin. I think she is utterly loathsome, but it is nevertheless worth knowing how many people like here ideas, why they feel this way, and where these people are generally located.

I do not think this type of thinking popular attraction will necessarily lead to groupthink and stupid decisions. If I go onto Sarah Palin's Facebook page because I's heard that she's the most popular candidate (heaven forbid), I could easily determine that I don't like her ideas, explain why, and link to another candidate that I think is better qualified. Or, if for some reason I was impressed with her proposals, I could still count on someone else explaining to me why I'm wrong and suggesting a different candidate.

The emergence of popular candidates online will not guarantee anything for that candidate in the long run. Rather, that candidates blog, website, or Facebook page would turn into a forum for open discussion that could very well turn against the candidate and serve as a promotional outlet for one of their competitors. In other words, Sarah Palin's popularity on Facebook only creates a bigger audience for someone who wants to break a critical story about her.

By the way, did I mention that NONE of this costs any money? If Sarah Palin, to use her as an example once again, were running for office and I discovered an instance where she pandered to a large multinational corporation, the story is out there and communicated for further discussion instantly... to those that participate in online forums.

If people cling to the old models of hearing advertisements on TV or radio, rather than participating in unfiltered online discussion, then they are allowing corporate funding to disproportionately influence the information they receive.

Be democratic... get on the internet! If corporations have a good point to make about how their interests represent larger economic interests, then their employees and public relations personnel can get on the internet and try to convince me just like anyone else would have to.

For the time being I say go ahead corporate America, spend as much as you want on political campaigns. Bloggers like myself will expose you and the politicians you've bought off. Maybe you'll get away with it in 2010, and maybe even in 2012, but before long every average Joe with internet access will be evaluating candidates through open debate and you won't be able to pay for control of the messages they receive.

As for the politicians, they should beware. When social media dwarfs fundraising as the primary means of building your base, getting elected will be strictly about your message. If you have good ideas, bloggers will promote your candidacy for free. Corporations can give you money or they can offer you a job down the road, but the time is coming where they will not be able to buy you public recognition and votes.