Living In A BCRA World
Only in a political climate managed by the McCain-Feingold Act could a homemade video like "Vote Different" make national headlines for days on end. Instead of simply getting a chuckle and quickly disappearing from the national consciousness, people have obsessed on the origin and nature of the ad, resulting in the creator's termination from his job. Now the Washington Post wonders whether "old-fashioned political chicanery" was at work on an ad that said almost nothing about anything:
The instant popularity of an attack video that mocked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) prompted plenty of talk this week about how an ordinary citizen can influence political discourse by tapping into the power of the YouTube culture.But the unmasking of the filmmaker as an employee of a company on the payroll of Clinton's Democratic presidential rival, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), raises questions about whether the more old-fashioned art of political chicanery was at play.
Phil de Vellis, who worked for the firm that designed Obama's Web site, Blue State Digital, says no one at the company or in Obama's camp knew he had made the video depicting Clinton as the droning voice of a totalitarian establishment. Obama and his aides say they had no idea who was behind the 74-second ad, which has been viewed online more than 2 million times, and which closes by flashing Obama's Web address.
Blue State yesterday provided a Feb. 10 e-mail in which de Vellis boasted of his role in the Obama effort: "Check out Barack's new website. . . . One shameless look at me plug, I designed the MyBarackObama toolbox that is on the front page and all the sidebar pages."
Thomas Gensemer, managing director of Blue State, a District-based online strategy firm, said he fired de Vellis Wednesday night. "This is an unfortunate situation all around," he said. Gensemer said his firm has provided only technical assistance, not creative services, to the senator's campaign. Joe Rospars, Obama's new media director, is on leave from Blue State.
In a rational political world, this would mean nothing. YouTube runs on the energy of millions of hobbyists who enjoy becoming film directors and video editors, and this would just be another funny little clip that people would quickly forget. However, thanks to the BCRA, the origins of any political communication hold deep implications for the candidates and their campaign offices.
Here's why. Political expenditures for advertising have to be reported, which requires the campaigns to identify themselves on every communication that they produce in order to ensure that the reports are accurate. That's not a problem; most of us support some form of disclosure for political campaigns. The problems comes when outside groups run ads on their own. In order to do so, they have to classify themselves in particular classes of organization, and they cannot show any coordination with the campaigns themselves when they do so. Specific restrictions apply at certain points in the campaign towards referencing and endorsing candidates rather than policies, which makes provenance even more critical.
ParkRidge47 and YouTube just showed how passé all of those rules have become. How will we police political advertising, now that it has become so easy to make? Anyone can make an attack ad now, and if it resonates, it will go viral in cyberspace. Will we conduct investigations every time someone posts a video to YouTube? To what purpose? Should employees of firms contracted by the political campaigns have to choose between their employment and their freedom to speak about their political views?
Most laughably, some people have claimed this to be the first "dirty trick" of the 2008 campaign. A dirty trick is when one campaign steals from another, or when people make up smears to kneecap an opponent. Take a good look at this ad. What dirty trick got played here? All it does is use a rather dull and banal speech by Hillary -- oddly, the one where she says she doesn't want yes-men -- in place of the Big Brother in the famous "1984" Macintosh ad by Apple. No smears, no lies, no policy stands of any kind ... just the casting of Hillary as Big Brother, an irony in and of itself. It's not even a particularly political political ad.
There's no dirty trick here. There wouldn't even be a story here, had we not traded our free political speech in a vain attempt to keep money out of politics. Maybe the woman in the ad should be throwing the hammer at campaign finance reform.
UPDATE: CQ reader Mr. Lynn notes this disturbing editorial in today's Boston Globe:
The anti-Clinton clip falls within the boundary of acceptability. It makes a point in a witty way -- the runner is wearing an iPod, unknown in 1984 -- and is airing too early in the campaign to have a significant impact. The Huffington Post has unmasked the creator as a Barack Obama supporter, who denies the campaign was involved. Viewers can now evaluate the clip based on its source. And a Clinton supporter has subsequently doctored the video to put Obama in the Big Brother role, and put that on YouTube. Free speech has generated more speech to enhance the debate over who would make the best Democratic nominee for president.But suppose it was two or three days before a close election, and a scurrilous, deceitful, anonymous clip was posted on YouTube and the other sites that specialize in homemade videos. Candidates should, of course, monitor all these sites and flag the offending videos. But doesn't YouTube have an obligation to make sure these ads are swept from its site before they can do harm? YouTube today doesn't have a policy against attack ads late in the campaign, but it should.
When did we get so weak-kneed about free speech? YouTube doesn't have any obligation to sweep its site for scurrilous opinions. As the Globe itself notes, the solution for this speech was more speech, not muzzling it. The Globe, despite its condescending admission that this ad was "within the boundary of acceptability", accepts that this silly, fun little clip has some deep resonance that requires alertness, if not alarm.
The only YouTubes that will damage candidates are those which capture their own words. The George Allen episode proved that. No one will take anything else on YouTube seriously enough to have any impact on elections. The Globe, and many others, should cease their screeching before we do more damage to political speech.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on March 23, 2007 5:58 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (15)
Posted by Mr Lynn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 6:51 AM
I suspect this may spell the end of anonymity on the Internet. All it takes is a modicum of video expertise to produce a grainy clip of a candidate or other celebrity in a compromising situation, and the damage is done.
Anonymous print on the Internet is already a problem for libel laws; video multiplies the potential for mischief a thousand-fold. The only solution I can see is to require positive identification before allowing posting—even on sites like this!
Then of course there is the world-wide nature of the Internet. How do you police posts from foreign countries?
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Mr Lynn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 6:58 AM
UPDATE:
The Boston Globe has an editorial on the subject, here:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/03/23/on_the_attack_on_youtube/
They put the onus on YouTube: "doesn't YouTube have an obligation to make sure these ads are swept from its site before they can do harm? YouTube today doesn't have a policy against attack ads late in the campaign, but it should."
That of course means YouTube is to police thousands of submissions daily; it's probably not feasible. The problem has to be addressed at its source, which is anonymity.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Mark![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 7:09 AM
You have a solution in search of a problem.
There is no way to police this problem, as you acknowledge in your first post.
You propose to restrict people's privacy, yet you admit that that such restrictions will have no impact on the problem that so worries you.
Why?
The only solution is to educate people that pictures and videos can be, will be, and are being, faked.
Be it YouTube, or be it Reuters. (Lebanon)
Posted by Lew![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 7:42 AM
"Freedom of Speach" is all fine and dandy as an abstract notion, UNTIL it starts endangering real politicians and their unreal career aspirations. Then by God, something has to be done to get a handle on this craziness!
Politicians have no problem whatever in defending flag-burning and pornography and all manner of vulgar and disgusting forms of expression, but suddenly when life bring's along one of those "You talkin' to ME?" moments, the crap hits the fan in a real hurry.
There is something about politicians that magnifies all of our shared flaws and then shoves them to center-stage and shines a bright light them. Every campaign becomes the ultimate "Reality Show"!
Posted by Mr Lynn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 7:43 AM
Posting on public Web sites is a form of publishing. The operative word is 'public'. There is no guarantee of, nor any reasonable expectation of, privacy in publishing. Anonymity in a public forum is not the same thing as privacy.
If Reuters is discovered publishing fake pictures, they can be held to account. If they libel someone, they can be sued. Why should the Internet be any different? Practically, yes, there are problems. But I have no doubt that there are technological means to establish and verify positive identities for posters, maybe more so than in the print world.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Mark![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 7:58 AM
There is no right to privacy in publishing?
Since when?
Tell that to Poor Richard.
If you don't know who Poor Richard was, you really need to get back and study the history books. As well as the constitution.
And Reuter's was discovered posting fake pictures. Nobody sued them, because nobody had grounds to sue them.
As someone who is involved in communications and the internet, your faith that if only enough laws are passed, a technical solution to this problem can be found, is quaint. Laughable, but quaint.
Posted by Mr Lynn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 9:19 AM
Yes, there is a tradition of (poorly disguised) anonymity in publishing in this country, e.g. Poor Richard, Publius, Mark Twain. It continues today (remember Joe Klein's 'Anonymous' book?), but pseudonyms cannot protect against legal action.
There is no right to privacy in publishing in the Constitution, any more than there was a 'right to privacy' for abortion. There is a right to free speech, especially political speech. What that means is that the government can't censor it.
Nobody had grounds to sue Reuters for the phony pictures, but libel is a different matter. It is very easy to envision miscreants creating libelous videos and posting then anonymously on YouTube.
Even conservatives agree that donations to political candidates should be made public. How would that be different from 'attack ads' created by creative partisans anonymously?
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Mark![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 10:04 AM
Despite the fact that there is a long history of anonymity in publishing, there is in your opinion, no right to privacy in publishing?
I didn't say that the constitution afforded us the right to privacy. The constitution affords no rights to individuals, instead, it grants rights to govt.
Nowhere in the constitution can I find language giving govt the right to force YouTube, or anyone else, to eliminate anonymous posting.
Let me get this straight. This whole speel is because you want to make libel more difficult?
I got a great idea. Why don't we have the govt require everyone in the US to wear GPS trackers at all times when we are not in our homes. Such trackers would make committing crimes of all types more difficult.
And since as you have proclaimed, noone has a right to privacy in a public place, nobody should have any grounds to complain.
Posted by unclesmrgol![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 10:10 AM
It wasn't that good a video anyway, nor even very innovative -- there are many internet tons of "1984" mashups parodying "1984" itself. I could build one in a weekend, and I don't even have fancy software. A not-well merged mashup of hillary's face with "1984"? Done.
What I could never build is that David Hasselhoff video where he spins two (count 'em -- two) video cubes on the tips of his fingers, with each face running a separate sub-video. And the salmon gripped in his mouth. The angels. The dachshunds. Priceless.
Posted by SkyWatch![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 12:23 PM
I was thinking the 1st dirty trick was when they stole Rudie's damage control papers from him at the airport.
Posted by Mr Lynn![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 1:11 PM
Mark writes, "Nowhere in the constitution can I find language giving govt the right to force YouTube, or anyone else, to eliminate anonymous posting."
The government can pass laws affecting all manner of things, except where it is restricted by the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. Are there not already laws requiring ISPs to know who is using their services? I suspect a similar law affecting Web-site operators and owners would pass Constitutional muster.
Your reductio ad absurdam of requiring everyone to wear GPS trackers probably would not be Constitutional, though it might survive if applied to convicted felons.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Mike Hendrickson![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 1:13 PM
I bookmarked the video clip on 6 March 2007. Don't know how long it had been on the site; but that is the day I noticed it on the YouTube front page.
After that it took 15 days to hit the news.
15+ days of political prep.
15+ days of research.
15+ days of planning.
15+ days of rehearsals.
15+ days of organization.
D-Day was yesterday.
Mark my words: 2008 will be the mother of all elections.
Posted by krm![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 3:27 PM
The repeal of teh 1st Amendment under BCRA is getting clearer and clearer with each incident.
Posted by sharkz![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 4:57 PM
"But suppose it was two or three days before a close election, and a scurrilous, deceitful, anonymous clip was posted on YouTube and the other sites that specialize in homemade videos. Candidates should, of course, monitor all these sites and flag the offending videos. But doesn't YouTube have an obligation to make sure these ads are swept from its site before they can do harm? YouTube today doesn't have a policy against attack ads late in the campaign, but it should"
Does the same standard apply to the NYTimes, CBS News and the rest of the media? Over the last 2 presidential elections I remember several late hits they tried to put on Bush that turned out to be a load of crap.
Nobody cared then but suddenly their precious Hillary or Obama can get sullied, watch out! Suddenly Youtube better watch their backs.
And I love the endorsement that Candidates should have employees to scour Youtube and get videos kicked off. Nope, no possible chance of overreach and speech suppression there, right?
F-tards the lot of them
Posted by Neo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| March 23, 2007 9:37 PM
The Boston Globe's comments are shameful.
I mean, imagine anyone other thatn a major newspaper or TV network doing anything that would upset months of their efforts.