Berg’s Seventh Law Has No Exceptions

If you were paying attention during the Wisconsin recall (also every other political campaign since the rise of the alt-media in the early nineties), you could not only note that the left was claiming that conservative billionaires were influencing the media – you could have predicted it.

Because you, a discerning media customer, know of Berg’s Seventh Law:  to wit, “When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty, they are at best projecting, and at worst drawing attention away from their own misdeeds”.

So you just knew this was going to come out:

Conservative foundations have poured big bucks into new Wisconsin websites that do original opposition research supporting Republican candidates.

[Note to conservative billionaires; some of us in Minnesota would be more than happy to help]

But it’s not like deep-pocketed liberal institutions are sitting on their hands.

Foundations created and funded by billionaire philanthropist and noted liberal George Soros have sunk money into two new media projects in the state – the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism and MapLight.

And – you guessed it – it’s a lot more money than there was on the conservative side.

Read the whole thing.

 

2 thoughts on “Berg’s Seventh Law Has No Exceptions

  1. ROFL, KR – Hi! I think of you fondly every time I tend our roses.

    There are better sources to document the influx of money from billionaires and others than this article. I recommend you read a variety of sources for a better insight into the phenomena. The difference that struck me is that there isn’t any evidence that I can find that the Soros money is manipulating anything that directly benefits him, unlike the Koch brothers contributions, both direct and indirect. Why it is that what is currently the conservative side of politics is missing that those policies being promoted, particularly taxation policies, contribute directly to YOU being disadvantaged, in terms of redistributing wealth upwards to that 1 or 2% of the extremely wealthy while the other 98% of us are on the wrong side of the wealth disparity chasm.
    [insert Wilhelm scream, just to get a smile out of KR]
    The more important question to ask is how does the free speech of big money diminish the impact of the free speech of you and I as individuals, in reducing your and my ability to influence these elections. An excellent story, despite the fact that you will hate the source, is this one: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/wisconsin-recall-americans-prosperity-dark-money

    What I found to be the most interesting parts of this article, which appears to be factually consistent with less left leaning sources than Mother Jones, are these lines:
    “McCabe estimates that nearly $31 million has been spent on the recalls in about four months’ time….. It’s a staggering sum considering $3.75 million was spent on the entire slate of state races in 2010.The $31 million spent on the recalls—the six August 9 elections and two more targeting Democratic state senators on August 16—splits evenly between left- and right-leaning groups.[my emphasis added; I like to drop by to offset the right wing / mitch berg fact distortion from time to time - DG] Where the spending is lopsided, McCabe says, is between the candidates and outside spending groups. In-state and out-of-state independent advocacy groups have dropped five times more than the candidates.”

    I have a concern that spending so disproportionately from groups outside the state diminishes the power we have within our respective states to affect our own elections, and diminishes the ability of the candidates to determine how their sides of campaigns run by making them more reactive than proactive.
    next quote:

    “While the spending is more or less even, here’s the big difference between the two sides: The left-leaning groups usually disclose their donors, while the right-leaning groups mostly don’t. ”

    and

    “The influx of campaign spending has fueled a fight on the airwaves that has skewed the truth and bordered on malicious….”

    One of the more constructive responses to this change to how we practice politics was this, which I hope is emulated by more candidates on both sides:
    “So vicious are the campaign ads that Clark, who’s challenging GOP Sen. Luther Olsen for the Senate’s 14th District seat, asked Olsen to sign a pact requiring truth in political ads and disclosure of outside dark money.”

    If anything good comes out of this, lets hope it is more fact, and less malice; more light and less heat. Unlike Michele Bachmann’s famous incandescent light bulbs (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

    I see both of the Dems in the Wisconsin recall elections on Tues. 8/16 won by sizeable margins, greater than earlier margins for Holperin, not as great a margin but still considerable, for Wirch, pretty much as expected, which is why those races received so much less attention.

    Ballot news reported: “In the recall elections on August 9, turnout was about 72% compared to the number of votes cast in November 2008. Tonight, turnout was 59% compared to the number of votes cast in November 2008.”

    If nothing else, how awesome is it for a 72% turnout, or even a 59% turnout, in elections like these! Now if there was only some way to ensure that these were better informed voters, on both sides, rather than voters misled by factually inaccurate and malicious ads….

Leave a Reply