WNBA Attacks The Odious Texas Abortion Law

From MSNBC.com:

In a full-page ad in The New York Times on Sunday, the Women’s National Basketball Players Association denounced Texas’ new, strict anti-abortion law, along with other attacks on reproductive rights coming from conservative-led legislatures across the nation.

GOP Senate Candidates Trailing Dems In TV Spending

 

It's not just the Trump campaign that is having money problems. Republican senate candidates are also trailing their Democratic opponents in cash raised and available to spend. Note the chart above. In most cases the difference is significant.

His Campaign Has Cash problems & Trump Is NOT Donating

The Trump campaign has a cash problem. Most interesting is that Trump, who said he could self-fund his campaign, has only given a paltry $8000 to the campaign.

Does he expect to lose, and not want to waste his own money on a losing effort?

Here's how NBCnews.com describes Trump's problem:

“Trump’s campaign has $10.1 million booked on television and radio ads between Wednesday and Election Day, compared to Biden’s $50 million.”

“The president can still count on a big assist from the RNC, which is spending another $12.6 million in key swing states like Florida, as well as from outside groups set to spend tens of millions more.”

“But when all aligned outside groups are combined with the campaign’s future spending, Democrats are set to outspend Republicans $109.8 million to $40.7 million on the presidential ad airwaves in the closing days. That’s nearly a 3-to-1 advantage, and it tells you everything you need to know how the political winds are blowing in these final days.”

Americans Are Opposed To Political Ads On Social Media

 

The charts above are from the Pew Research Center. They questioned 10,093 respondents between September 8th and 13th, and their survey has a 1.6 point margin of error.

It shows that a clear majority of Americans don't want political ads on their social media sites. In fact, only 26% believes those sites should run political ads while 54% believe they should not. And that extends across all age groups, party labels, and political ideologies.

They also don't like those social media sites using their data and online activity to target them for political ads.

New Study Shows Political Ads May Be A Waste Of Money

 

Each election year, billions of dollars are spent by candidates at every level (local, state, and federal). The idea is that a well-done advertisement can change the minds of voters. Is that true though?

A new study, published in the journal Science Advances, says most of that money may be wasted. While a good ad can increase a candidates favorability by a tiny (but statically significant) amount, it rarely changes the way a person votes (by only a statically insignificant amount).

The study was done by Alexander Coppock (Yale University), Seth J. Hill (University of California - San Diego), and Lynn Vavreck (UCLA). The post below is how Mike Cummings at Yale News sums up the study.

Every four years, U.S. presidential campaigns collectively spend billions of dollars flooding TV screens across the country with political ads. But a new study co-authored by Yale political scientist Alexander Coppock shows that, regardless of content, context, or audience, those pricey commercials do little to persuade voters. 

The study, published Sept. 2 in the journal Science Advances, measured the persuasive effects of 49 high-profile advertisements from the 2016 presidential campaign on a nationally representative sample of 34,000 people through a series of 59 randomized experiments. Expanding on prior research suggesting that political ads have little impact on voters’ preferences, the study shows that those weak effects are consistent irrespective of a number of factors, including an ad’s tone, timing, and its audience’s partisanship. 

“There’s an idea that a really good ad, or one delivered in just the right context to a targeted audience, can influence voters, but we found that political ads have consistently small persuasive effects across a range of characteristics,” said Coppock, an assistant professor of political science in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. “Positive ads work no better than attack ads. Republicans, Democrats, and independents respond to ads similarly. Ads aired in battleground states aren’t substantially more effective than those broadcast in non-swing states.”    

Coppock and his co-authors — University of California-San Diego political scientist Seth J. Hill and UCLA political scientist Lynn Vavreck — conducted the study throughout the 2016 presidential primaries and general election. 

Over 29 weeks, a representative sample of Americans was divided at random into groups and assigned to watch campaign advertisements or a placebo advertisement — a car-insurance commercial — before answering a short survey.

The researchers selected ads using real-time, ad-buy data and news coverage of each week’s most important ads. They tested ads attacking or promoting Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton as well as commercials concerning primary candidates, such as Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Bernie Sanders. They analyzed the ads’ effects on survey respondents across several variables, including the candidate, party, or political action committee that sponsored them; whether they were positive or negative in tone; the partisanship of those viewing the ads; the time to Election Day when they aired; whether they were viewed in a battleground state or not; and whether they aired during the primary or general election. 

They found that, on average and across all variables, the ads moved a candidate’s favorability rating among respondents only .05 of a point on the survey’s five-point scale, which is small but statistically significant given the study’s large size, note the researchers. The ads’ effect on whom individuals intended to vote for was smaller still — a statistically insignificant 0.007 of a percentage point. 

Campaigns should carefully consider efforts to tailor advertisements to specific audiences given that the evidence shows that ads’ persuasive effects vary little from person to person or from commercial to commercial, the researchers concluded

The findings do not demonstrate that political advertising is always ineffective, Coppock said, noting that the study didn’t analyze the influence of an entire advertising campaign.  

“TV ads help candidates increase their name recognition among the public, which is extremely important,” said Coppock, a resident fellow at Yale’s Institution for Social Policy Studies and the Center for the Study of American Politics. “Moreover, the effects we demonstrated were small but detectable and could make the difference between winning and losing a close election.”  

Public Knows "Defund Police" Doesn't Mean Eliminate Them

The chart above reflects the results of a recent Monmouth University Poll -- done between June 26th and 30th of a national sample of 867 adults, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

Recently, Donald Trump has been running an ad saying Biden (and Democrats) want to defund the police. The ad says that police will no longer be available if you are a victim of crimes, because Biden and the Democrats will eliminate the police.

Trump has nothing to run on as far as accomplishments, because he has accomplished nothing positive for the country -- and the polls show the voters know that. So he is trying something else. He hopes to scare people into voting for him.

Fortunately, most people are not as stupid as Trump thinks they are -- at least those outside of his "deplorable" base. Note in the chart above that only 18% think "defund police" means to eliminate the police. But 77% know that it just means changing the way police operate.

Can Bloomberg (Or Steyer) Buy The Democratic Nomination?

The chart above is from Axios.com. It shows the amount of money each candidate for president has already spent on their campaigns.

The two biggest spenders are billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg -- both of whom are trying to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. Both are self-funding their campaigns.

Steyer, who has been in the race for a while, has spent the most money on advertising so far -- about $54.8 million. He has asked people to send him a dollar, but that was just so he could register enough "donors" to get on the debate stage with other Democratic candidates. 99.99% of the money he has spent is his own.

Bloomberg has only been a candidate for a few days, but has already spent $35 million on TV ads. He is not asking for donations and won't be on the debate stage. He also will not try to compete in the early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada). He is hoping his massive advertising can help him compete in the Super Tuesday states (voting on March 3rd) and beyond.

Both of these candidates say their self-funding means they won't be beholding to anyone if nominated. They think that's a selling point. I don't. I think candidates should be beholding to the many thousands of Democrats who send their hard-earned money to their campaigns. I don't want candidates who owe anything to corporations or lobbyists. But they should owe their allegiance to the  base of the party.

Personally, it just looks to me like Bloomberg and Steyer are trying to buy the nomination. They are both super-rich, and they can outspend any other candidate in the field (even those who are doing very well in fundraising among Democrats). There is no real limit to how much they can spend.

Do Democrats really want a candidate who can just spend the most money? I don't think so. Steyer, with all his spending is still in low single-digits in the polls. I doubt Bloomberg will do much better.

Republicans may be happy to sell their nomination and be represented by a billionaire, but I think Democrats are different. They want a candidate with policies that will help most Americans -- especially the poor, the working class, and the middle class (all of whom have been ignored by Republicans).

I could be wrong, but I don't think Bloomberg or Steyer can buy the Democratic nomination. What do you think?

Over $130 Million Has Already Been Spent On Prez Race

The chart above is from Axios.com. It shows the spending in the presidential race for the biggest Democratic and Republican candidates. Over $130 million dollars has already been spent on advertising -- and we are still a year away from the general election (and nearly 3 months away from the first primary voting.

The biggest spenders, so far, are Tom Steyer and Donald Trump -- the richest candidates in the race. Together, they have spent $78.5 million.

By next November, a record amount of spending will be done by the presidential candidates.

We need to change this system.

If Social Media Can't Ban Lying, Should It Run Political Ads?

The chart above reflects the result of a recent YouGov Poll. They questioned 2,913 adults on October 31st -- asking them if they would support banning all political ads on social media for a year before an election. The response was overwhelmingly in favor of such a ban.

There has recently been a lot of discussion about social media running political ads. It started because of an ad run by Trump/Republicans that accused Joe Biden and his son of corruption regarding the younger Biden's connection with a Ukrainian gas company. The ads is a lie, since there is absolutely no proof of any corruption.

Mark Zuckerberg, and his company (Facebook), have refused to take the ad down. Zuckerberg tried to claim it would be a violation of free speech to censor a politician's ads. He obviously doesn't understand free speech. The constitutional guarantee of free speech just prevents the government from censoring political speech. It does not (and should not) prevent a private company from banning political speech that is nothing but lies. Allowing untrue political ads is not a service to the American public, but to dishonest politicians.

I suspect Zuckerberg is either afraid of the blowback his company would receive if it banned the lies by Trump and the Republicans (which they do repeatedly and often), or his company doesn't have the ability to police the political ads they are paid to run. Neither is an acceptable excuse to allow politicians to lie to the public.

A California left-wing PAC sought to expose Facebook's policy by running an ad saying the Republicans love the Green New Deal (an obvious untruth, since the GOP doesn't even understand it, let alone support it). Facebook banned the ad, saying it was run by a Pac and not someone running for office. The PAC's leader then filed to run as a candidate for governor, and again placed the ad. Facebook again banned it, saying he was not a real candidate.

That is rather disingenuous. If Facebook has the ability to determine who is a real candidate and who is not, then they should be able to determine when a politician is lying in an ad. If they can't, then they probably shouldn't run any political ads at all -- from any politician or political party.

The American public would support that. Note the chart above. Overwhelming majorities of Americans (in every group) supporting banning political ads from social media (like Facebook) for a year before an election. I agree.

If Facebook can't do it right, they shouldn't do it at all!

Court Overturns Minnesota Law On Political Clothes At Poll

 All of the states refuse to allow political activity within a certain distance of the voting polls. Here is Texas, it 100 feet. Nine states also restrict a voter from wearing clothing, buttons, hats, logos that support a political party, candidate or issue ( if that issue is on the ballot or could be taken by others as supporting a particular party or candidate). Those states are Minnesota, Texas, Delaware, Kansas, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Vermont.

I have been a poll worker, assistant elections judge, and elections judge in multiple elections here in Texas, and I have had to ask voters to leave that were wearing such apparel. Sometimes they could just leave, turn a shirt inside out (so the message could not be read), and then come back and vote.

Shirts like those pictured at the top were easy. They obviously support a political party, and would not be allowed. The green shirt on the left and the white shirt on the right are more of a judgement call. However, I would not have allowed them, because to me (and I think most voters) the green one could easily be read to say "vote Democratic" and the white one "vote Republican".

The Supreme Court just struck down the law in Minnesota. On a 7 to 2 vote, the law was deemed to be too broad, and did not strictly identify what it meant by "political". Did that decision apply to any other states? Maybe not. Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, seemed to indicate that the Texas and California laws were constitutional. He said:

"Texas, for example, bans “a badge, insignia, emblem, or other similar communicative device relating to a candidate, measure, or political party appearing on the ballot, or to the conduct of the election.”

Roberts also pointed to California, which bans the display of information “that advocates for or against any candidate or measure,” including the “display of a candidate’s name, likeness, or logo,” the “display of a ballot measure’s number, title, subject, or logo,” and buttons, hats or shirts containing such information.

So, don't wear your political clothing to the polls in Texas this November. It is very likely you will not be able to vote until you leave, change, and come back, because the court did not overturn the Texas law -- and the same is true of the other seven states.

I urge everyone to vote, but the polls are not the place to try to convince others how to vote, or the place to start a political argument over the clothing you are wearing. Poll workers have a difficult enough job to do. Don't make it more difficult for them.

Examples Of Russian Facebook Ads In 2016 Election

We have heard a lot recently about the Facebook ads purchased and run by Russia to influence our presidential election -- ads that were passed on by many on the right and ,sadly the left. These ads are believed to have been seen by as many as 10 million people during the 2016 campaign season.

Here are a few of those ads, thanks to the good folks at Think Progress. The ads are truly vile.

Russia Used Facebook To Help Trump Win In 2016

It is thought by many that all Russia did in the 2016 election was to hack into Democratic Party accounts and provide that information. That is not true. Russian hackers also tried to hack into the election system of many states, although it is still unknown whether they were able to change election rolls or affect the vote outcome. Now we learn that Russia used Facebook to run ads favoring Trump.

Here is part of an interesting article by Adam Peck at Think Progress on Russia's use of Facebook:

Last week, Facebook finally disclosed what many experts and observers have long suspected: various actors within Russia were responsible for the creation of hundreds of fake accounts and used them to purchase millions of ads with the intent to sway the results of the 2016 election.

But Facebook’s admission only leaves American voters with more questions than the announcement answered. Though the Silicon Valley giant was self-congratulatory for its transparency in detailing some of its dealings with Russia, it was equally resistant to disclosing the true scale of Russia’s efforts.

What the company did reveal was that roughly 470 fake Russian accounts were used to purchase $100,000 in targeted Facebook ads to reach American voters in an effort to sway the outcome of the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump. To the untrained eye, those figures don’t sound all that nefarious: 470 fake accounts barely registers on a network that boasts more than 2 billion users, and a $100,000 ad buy wouldn’t even net you a single 30 second commercial on primetime television. Donald Trump’s own campaign spent roughly 900 times more on digital advertising. How widespread could Russia’s meddling be?

More than Facebook seems willing to admit. In a blog post announcing the findings, Facebook’s Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos made a point to stress that most of the ads the company uncovered didn’t make specific mention of either candidate, before noting that those ads instead sought to emphasize “divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum.”

The Daily Beast highlighted just one example, a now-defunct Facebook page called SecureBorders that was maintained by the same Internet Research Association that was responsible for many of the 470 fraudulent accounts Facebook flagged. That page, which had well over 100,000 followers, shared dozens of memes . . .

Though none mentioned Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton specifically, the text on those memes closely mirrored the xenophobic rhetoric spewed by the Trump campaign and its supporters during the election. All it took was for one meme to resonate with Trump’s followers, and the Internet Research Association could put thousands of dollars towards boosting the post even further, at a cost as low as $1 per day. Because Facebook allows hyper-specific targeting of ads on its network, The Daily Beast estimated that $100,000 could have paid for ads reaching as many as 70 million American adults, over a third of the number of people registered to vote. Business Insider’s own analysis suggested the number could be as high as 100 million.

But the public might never know the true scale of Russia’s efforts, because Facebook refuses to publicly provide any specifics about the ads and their reach. The company says it is “unable” to provide the ads that were found to be linked back to Russia, citing non-existent federal law.

Republicans Spend $1.4 Million To Lie To Americans

(Cartoon image is by Adam Zyglis in The Buffalo News.)

Congressional Republicans are getting nervous about their plan to dismantle Obamacare. Many of them are now afraid that their repeated lies about Obamacare will be exposed once the plan is repealed. They could just abandon their nefarious plan and fix Obamacare (which is what the public really wants), but that would make too much sense. Instead, they have chosen another option.

They have decided that the answer is more propaganda. A group affiliated with the GOP (American Action Network) is spending $1.4 million dollars on advertisements on television and digital media. They are advertising the Republican plan that will replace Obamacare. The ads claim that plan has "more choices", "better care", and "lower costs".

There is only one thing wrong with this approach -- it's advertising a plan that DOES NOT EXIST! The congressional Republicans have been trying to come up with a plan to replace Obamacare for years now, and have been unable to do that. And they are no closer to developing a plan now than in the past.

There is only one way to describe the new GOP advertising campaign -- it is a LIE!

The ACLU's Open Letter To Donald Trump

The image above is of a full page ad the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took out in the New York Times. It is an open letter to Donald Trump. It Says:

“Dear President-Elect Trump,

For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has stood as this nation’s premier defender of freedom and justice for all.

As you assume the nation’s highest office, we must ask you now as president-elect to reconsider and change course on certain campaign promises you have made.

Specifically, you promised to:

• amass deportation force to remove 11 million undocumented immigrants
• ban the entry of Muslims and institute aggressive surveillance programs targeting them
• restrict a woman’s right to abortion services
• reauthorize waterboarding and other forms of torture
• change our nation’s libel laws and restrict freedom of expression”

“These proposals are not simply un-American and wrong-headed. They are unlawful and unconstitutional, and would violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as other statutes and international treaties.”

“Many of our country’s most cherished rights are the result of ACLU litigation and advocacy. They include the Scopes trial (the right to teach evolution in public science classrooms) and the following Supreme Court cases: Korematsu (challenging Japanese American internment); Miranda (the right to remain silent); Griswold (the right to contraception); Loving (the right of interracial couples to marry); Gideon (the right to a court-appointed attorney if you can’t afford one); Windsor (striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act); and Obergefell (the right of same-sex couples to marry) and others. We have worked with and battled American presidents of both parties to ensure that our country makes good on it’s founding premise as the land of the free.”

“If you do not reverse course and endeavor to make these campaign promises a reality, you will have to contend with the full firepower of the ACLU at your every step. Our staff of litigators and activists in every state, thousands of volunteers, and millions of supporters stand ready to fight against any encroachment on our cherished freedoms and rights.”

“One thing is certain: We will be vigilant every day of your tenure as president. And when you ultimately vacate the Oval Office, we will do likewise with your successor.”

Sanders Has Spent 60% Of All Democratic Ad Spending

Bernie Sanders has made it a centerpiece of his campaign to get "big money" out of politics -- so it is a bit strange that his campaign is the biggest spender of all. Neither Hillary Clinton nor any of the 17 Republican candidates has spent as much money on media consulting, production, and ad buys as Sanders has spent. In fact, Clinton has spent only about 2/3 (67%) of what Sanders has spent.

Here is some of what The Washington Post wrote about Sanders' campaign spending:

The small-dollar fundraising juggernaut that has kept Bernie Sanders’s insurgent White House bid afloat far longer than anticipated has generated another unexpected impact: a financial windfall for his team of Washington consultants.

By the end of March, the self-described democratic socialist senator from Vermont had spent nearly $166 million on his campaign — more than any other 2016 presidential contender, including rival Hillary Clinton. More than $91 million went to a small group of admakers and media buyers who produced a swarm of commercials and placed them on television, radio and online, according to a Washington Post analysis of Federal Election Commission reports.

While the vast majority of that money was passed along to television stations and websites to pay for the advertising, millions in fees were kept by the companies, The Post calculated. While it is impossible to determine precisely how much the top consultants have earned, FEC filings indicate the top three media firms have reaped payments of seven figures.

Sanders’s money blitz, fueled by a $27 average donation that he repeatedly touts, has improbably made the anti-billionaire populist the biggest spender so far in the election cycle. The campaign’s wealth has been a surprising boon for vendors across the country who signed on to his long-shot bid.

The large profits stem in part from the fact that no one in Sanders’s campaign imagined he would generate such enormous financial support. So unlike Clinton, he did not cap how much his consultants could earn in commissions from what was expected to be a bare-bones operation, according to campaign officials.

Sanders likes to claim that he was the little guy, and couldn't compete with other big spending campaigns. That is simply not true (as the chart above shows). Sanders didn't lose because he couldn't afford to compete. He lost because Democrats didn't want him to be their nominee. They preferred to be represented by Hillary Clinton (by several million popular votes and hundreds of delegates). Bernie and his supporters don't want to admit that, but it is the truth.

Money Does Matter In Our Federal Elections

Does money matter in our federal elections -- the elections that decide who will go to the Senate and the House of Representatives? It certainly does! The chart above was made from information provided to the PBS Newshour by the Center for Responsive Politics, and it shows that almost every time the candidate who had the most money spent on his/her behalf won their election (82% of the time for Senate candidates and 94% of the time for House candidates).

And sadly, much of this money spent, especially for Republican candidates was dark money. It is called Dark money because it doesn't have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and those donating the money can remain anonymous. This is money that doesn't encourage anyone to vote for one candidate over another. Instead it focuses on issues -- and is usually negative toward a candidates stand on issues. In the election just completed, this dark money was mostly used to tear down and demonize Democratic candidates (and the Democratic Party).

And it looks like the negative smears paid for by dark money worked in this past election. While the low turnout was one factor affecting the election, it seems that the negative ads also worked. A Rasmussen Poll showed that most Americans think the 2014 vote was not a vote for the Republicans as much as it was a vote against the Democrats. And a Gallup Poll showed that the Democrats had a higher favorable rating than the Republicans -- until the last month of campaigning (when the dark money negative ads began to have an effect on the voters' perception of Democrats).

The corporations and the obscenely rich had a big effect on the election by pumping huge amounts of dark money into negative ads to smear Democratic candidates -- and they did it secretly, so that they voters can never know who was donating that dark money. This needs to be changed. No one should be able to buy an election in this country, and that's exactly what they did. There should be a limit on money donated to affect an election, and those donating should have to publicly disclose their names and the amount they donated -- even if it takes a constitutional amendment to accomplish that.

Political Ads Are Getting Nastier (Thanks To Dark Money)

Do you think it's just your imagination that campaigns seem to be getting nastier these days? Well, you would be wrong. Although their have always been a certain amount of negative political ads in American elections, there are more of them now than in the past.

That's what the Wesleyan Media Project found when they did a survey of political ads. They surveyed all the political ads (for governor, U.S. House, and U.S. Senate) in the same time frame in 2010, 2012, and 2014. They found a significantly higher number of negative ads in 2014 for all three kinds of races, and in the senate races the negative ads actually made up a majority of all the political ads.

Why are their more negative ads this year? A major reason is the influx of "dark money" into our campaigns. Ever since the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision, corporations and rich donors have been donating to super-PACS. These super-PACs don't have to report who their donors are and there's no limit to the amount of money they can spend (as long as they don't openly coordinate their ad spending with a candidate's campaign). Since this is "dark money" (secret donations) that doesn't have to be reported to the FEC, these organizations can get as nasty with their ads as they want -- and there will be no repercussions, since the public cannot know who is paying for the nasty ads.

This is having some bad effects on American campaigns. It is allowing corporations and the rich to secretly buy the candidates of their choice, and it is lowering the tone of our campaigns -- and it is turning our representative democracy into a plutocracy (rule by the wealthy class).

Here is how Texas progressive Jim Hightower describes it on his own blog:

When five Supreme Court justices decreed that corporations are entitled to full free speech rights in our elections and that corporate money is a form of speech that cannot be restricted, they produced a nightmare tsunami of corporate cash that is now drowning our People's democratic rights. After all, if money is speech, then speech is no longer free – it's for sale.

This year, we're seeing what the Court's absurd edict is costing us. First, the corporate purchase of political speech has in fact reached tsunamic force in the current Congressional races. Spending on TV ads will likely top $2 billion, 70 percent higher than four years ago, when the Court issued its Citizens United money ruling.

Second, the bulk of this speech is not being bought by candidates or parties, but by secretive outside front groups that hide the corporate interests funding the ads. In Senate races alone, these shadow groups have already run some 150,000 TV spots. The Koch brothers' main front group, Americans for Prosperity, is by far the biggest buyer of speech, having laid out $44 million on Congressional races in just the first six months of this election year. 

Third, and most pernicious, the court-created "right" of moneyed front groups to flood the airwaves has handed them the power to dictate any campaign's message. The ads of those secret fronts now define the issues and even the candidates themselves before the race really gets going. Worse, because the outside groups are anonymous, their "speech" consists almost entirely of the nastiest, most vituperative attacks on candidates they oppose, turning our election-year discourse into toxic slimefests that turn off voters and shrivel turnout.

To help stop the corporate purchase of the People's political speech rights, connect with www.MoveToAmend.org.

Stations Carrying Limbaugh Doing Poorly In The Ratings

(This caricature of Rush Limbaugh is by the inimitable DonkeyHotey.)

A few years ago, Rush Limbaugh was the king of talk radio and talk radio was very popular. Those days are gone. That is the opinion of industry expert Holland Cooke, who says:

The conversation really picked up on February 29, 2012, Leap Year Day which was Day 1 of this three-day Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke faux pas. And, if we were studying the history of talk radio, you stick a pin in the timeline there because at that moment, a very well organized and relentless advertiser boycott effort which remains underway today, rendered that business inviable.

Hundreds of blue-chip national advertisers basically have not only wandered away from Rush Limbaugh and some of the other righties, they’ve abandoned the format entirely.  They are afraid to be heard on a news talk station because this man’s use of his free speech triggered the opposing viewpoint exercising THEIR right to free speech.

The boycotters are speaking and using the marketplace to say, “ENOUGH!”  So as a consequence of all of this, the very company that owns, for instance, The Rush Limbaugh Show, which owns a bunch of great big talk stations has actually demoted him to smaller talk stations in two really big markets.  You and I did an Ed Show about this at the time. In Los Angeles and San Francisco they moved him aside because his continuing presence was making it tough to make a go of it with the big stations.

So he was told to go sit at the kid’s table and the irony in this is that for years the radio righties have been cackling about progressive radio’s failure to attain their level of listenership while the radio lefties had to go sit at the kid’s table.  Well now he’s there. . .

So the short answer is talk radio as we know it, the crazy uncle righty politically monologue-based I’m right you’re wrong genre is mathematically in trouble.

How bad is it? Well look at the ratings of the stations carrying Rush Limbaugh's show in the biggest markets. The stations carrying Limbaugh are 22nd in New York, 37th in Los Angeles, 19th in Chicago, 21st in Dallas, and 27th in San Francisco. That's a far cry from where he was a couple of years ago. The company Rush works for has removed him from their big stations (because he was losing them too much market share and money), and put him on smaller stations with less power (and therefore less reach).

Now some will say that this is censorship and a violation of free speech -- but that is nonsense. The constitutional guarantee of free speech just guarantees that the government will not punish Rush (or anyone else) for their speech. It does not say the public at large, or the radio stations, can't act in their own interests. The public, including those urging an advertising boycott, have just as much right to free speech as Rush does -- and their speech has been very effective (costing him more than 3100 advertisers).

The truth is that the free market (which right-wingers say they support) has spoken, and it is saying it wants nothing to do with Limbaugh. His days of radio supremacy are over. He may or may not get a new contract, but if he does it will be for far less than he's now making. His marketability has fallen drastically.

Is It Art Or Is It Advertising ?

These two sculptures have gone up near Marfa, Texas. One is a life-size image of a Dodge Charger, and the other is a 40-foot tall image of the iconic Playboy bunny. But one citizen has complained to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) that the bunny image is advertising (and not art), and therefore should have to abide by the state laws regarding roadside advertising signs (which require a permit from TxDOT). And TxDOT has agreed with the complainer -- ordering the removal of the bunny sculpture within 45 days (since Playboy Enterprises did not apply for and receive a permit for the "advertisement").

Playboy did pay for the sculpture to be made and placed near Marfa (which is known for its art community). But they say the two sculptures are art, not advertising (and therefore don't need any permit). This brings up an interesting question. What is art, and where is the line that divides it from advertising? Some artists, like Andy Warhol, didn't believe there was a difference -- and his reproductions of Campbell's soup cans have been recognized as art. If an image of Warhol's famous painting was put up beside the road, would TxDOT consider it an advertisement?

Does the fact that Playboy Enterprises paid for the sculpture to be made and erected make it an advertisement? Would it be art if Playboy Enterprises didn't pay for it? A case could certainly be made that the sculpture is an iconic symbol in our culture (just like the Campbell's soup can), and could be used to make an artistic statement (such as a statement about sexuality in our society).

I have to disagree with TxDOT. I think both sculptures are art. But then I live in Amarillo, only a couple of miles from Cadillac Ranch (a recognized work of art featuring 10 Cadillacs buried nose-down in the ground). TxDOT has not said that Cadillac Ranch is an advertisement for Cadillacs -- why not? What is the difference between those Cadillacs and the bunny sculpture? Aren't both iconic symbols of our culture? And what about the giant cross erected in the Panhandle? Couldn't that be considered an advertisement for christianity?

What do you think? Is the bunny sculpture art or advertising? What is the difference?

----------------------------------------

Here are the images I reference in the above post -- Cadillac Ranch, the Warhol painting, and the huge cross in Texas Panhandle. Art or advertising?

Advertisers Avoiding Rush Like The Plague

(This caricature of Rush Limbaugh is by DonkeyHotey.)

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh thought it would be a short-term problem when advertisers starting leaving his show in droves. Things would die down, and the advertisers would return. But that hasn't happened. According to one executive at Cumulus Media, 48 out of 50 of their biggest advertisers now require that their advertising on that network not be played on the show of Rush Limbaugh (or his right-wing buddy Sean Hannity). This means Rush Limbaugh is not the money machine that he once was for the radio stations carrying his show.

Will Rush survive? He well could, because there are still a lot of right-wing nuts that listen to him. But with the radio stations bleeding money during his show's hours, you can bet that Rush's next contract won't be nearly as lucrative as his last one. After all, the primary reason these stations exist is to make money -- and they won't pay him huge money if they can't sell advertising on his show. Here's how Media Matters sums up the current situation:

As numerous members of the conservative movement flee from the Heritage Foundation's flawed immigration study, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh has maintained a stalwart defense of the organization.

Not a surprise considering Rush Limbaugh's syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, is the single largest independent contractor to the Heritage Foundation according to their latest 990 filing with the IRS, receiving $2,236,555 from the think tank.

With advertisers fleeing his show, and as a result radio companies suffering major losses, the fiscal sponsorship of the conservative movement is now fiscally critical. A "very high ranking" official at Cumulus, the owner of Rush and Sean Hannity's flagship station WABC, told Radio Ink, "Forty-eight of the top 50 network advertisers have 'excluded Rush and Hannity' orders. Every major national ad agency has the same dictate."

Without wingnut welfare, which has also included sponsorships from FreedomWorks, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's shows would not be financially viable.

The financial relationship between the conservative movement and its radio hosts has existed for years -- Heritage has been a major sponsor of Premiere Radio talent, specifically Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, according to a 2011 report by Ken Vogel of Politico -- however with Limbaugh and Hannity's recent well publicized problems attracting sponsorship to their programs the role of the conservative movement is not rightwing radios key sponsor.