Here is a collection of letters sent by Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to a bunch of American companies, demanding that they explain why have apparently chosen to reduce their advertising on channels and outlets whose point of view skews to the right, or eliminate that advertising entirely. Here is Jordan’s press release summarizing the effort.
Here is a Fox News story about the inquiry.
Here is a story from a few months ago showing that Jordan has been ramping up on this.
The argument offered by Jordan and his GOP allies is that these advertisers are conspiring to “demonetize” conservative media.
Never mind that, on paper, this argument is ludicrous and laughable. It’s a free speech issue, plain and simple. Jordan’s letters bafflingly cite the Supreme Court decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. which held that political boycotts of distasteful businesses are entirely lawful and cannot be enjoined by the state, which is directly in opposition to Jordan’s challenge of these advertisers’ apparent actions. Let’s just stipulate that Jordan is a moron and this is an example of how he misuses the power of his office for transparently political ends, and in a sane world this would be waved off with a sarcastic eye-roll.
The question is, rather — is there a path by which Jordan and the GOP can make this stick?
Can they ignore the free-speech argument and recast the issue as conspiracy or collusion? Can they make enough awkward noise about it that the corporations will decide it’s cheaper and easier to surrender than to fight for the principle? Is this just empty grandstanding, or is there anything here on which Jordan and his Rethuglican allies can get traction, either legal or practical?
And if the answer is yes, is there any way this could backfire? For example, could the Queer Candle Co. use any precedent established here to force the Daily Wire to accept its ads?
Pretty sure the only thing he’s trying to do is get them to deny it, ideally in a Congressional hearing where he can ask a bunch of grandstanding gotcha questions.
I can’t imagine being forced to advertise (sell) my gay pride flags on Fox News. Doesn’t seem like smart business.
I think this is just an attempt to take some attention away from something else, be it the VP pick or the next breaking story of more awfulness from trump.
Imagine it, though… “Fox News and Representative Jim Jordan fought hard to get this commercial on Fox! Now you, too, can be the proud owner of a 15’ by 20’ rainbow flag, all thanks to them! Great gifts for any young people in your life, buy them for everyone you know!”
The issue here is that there are groups on the left who are trying to ‘defund’ the right by putting pressure on companies who might pay to advertise on right-leaning channels/sites. Not trivial threats either, look at the trouble MyPillow had by its owner supporting Trump. The same thing happens here in the UK, the Stop Funding Hate group is trying to shut down the GBN news channel by killing their advertising revenue. Jordan won’t be going after companies per-se, but is looking for evidence they’ve been influenced in this way.
Are you sure you have this story straight, Cervaise? I have it on good authority that money is speech, regulations stifle business, and Fox News is fair and balanced.
Does someone want to go through the letter and list the media outlets that Jim Jordan admits are biased to the right?
It might very well be, depending on how the pressure groups are funded. In any case it’s something that goes beyond normal consumer boycotting and is getting into very shady territory. Trying to restrict debate is not healthy stuff for a democracy.
For comparison, see Elon Musk’s pending lawsuits against many of the same offenders named by Jordan, specifically for their retreat from Musk’s now-private platform.
Note that this is pitched similarly to Jordan’s inquiry, with accusations about conspiracy and collusion, restraint of trade, and racketeering.
I still don’t see how there’s a legal argument here. But that’s why I started the thread.
Say more. What’s an example of how those groups could be funded that makes this a government issue? And, more specifically, how this means you call in the corporations, and not the funders?
Trying to restrict who I can decide not to buy from seems like “not healthy stuff”. Trying to restrict debate criminally wouldn’t be “healthy stuff” — but if someone feels ‘restricted’ in a debate because I’m quite legally going to refrain from buying what they’re selling, that sure seems to me to be fine, if I’m doing nothing wrong by not buying what they’re selling.
Are you pitching the alternative of making me buy what they’re selling? Because that seems, uh, what’s the word? Wrong? Am I pronouncing that right? Wrong? That sounds wrong.
Don’t know what the US laws are, but in the case of Stop Funding Hate they’re organised as a type of UK non-profit business that shouldn’t be involved in politics. And as I said, Jordan wants evidence. Probably whatever communications the companies have from outside groups regarding their advertising spending.
I would say it’s part of the debate. “Hey Ford, I like your cars, but I’m not buying one while you advertise on Tucker’s show.” That’s a fair position and a healthy discussion to have. The My Pillow asshole decided that undermining democracy was more important than selling pillows. People and companies make decisions an live with the consequences. Right wing media has to live with the consequences now that they’ve joined a cult and become too controversial for many legitimate companies.
I agree, Musk is using the same arguments, point for point. My collusiometer tells me this is not a coincidence, but it is still a very flimsy argument. Here is the New York Times’ take on that:
In the lawsuit, X argued that advertisers’ refusal to return was anticompetitive. “By refraining from purchasing advertising from X, boycotting advertisers are forgoing a valuable opportunity to purchase low-priced advertising inventory on a platform with brand safety that meets or exceeds industry standards,” the lawsuit said.
It’s just unfortunate (for the huffin’ and puffin’ spoilt brat Elon) that to forgo valuable business oportunities is a right. Collusion would be illegal if it was made to gain an advantage, in particular an unfair advantage, but not if it is made to incur a cost or forgo a chance. This is exactly what SCOTUS established as precedent in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v Claiborne Hardware Co. IANAL, so please correct me if a read that case wrongly. Musk has given the defense the arguments they need in the very argument they put forward when presenting their case. He must be crazy, delusional or on bad drugs.
BTW: It takes some cheek to claim that X, née Twitter (plus ça change), is “a platform with brand safety that meets or exceeds industry standards”. To be clear: No, it is not.