Inflammatory Political Influencers are Destructive

There was a time when media regulations incentivized thought leaders to care about the consequences of what they said. They informed rather than inflamed their audience. That is what media ethics looks like.

As a 40+ media industry veteran, I experienced a dramatic change in media ethics when regulations were rolled back. Ownership limitations were revoked, the Fairness Doctrine erased, a level playing field for competitors tipped to favor “new” media with liability exemptions and, the most insidiously, a lack of disclosure for paid political influencers and the fundraisers who fund them. Lack of disclosure removes the incentive of media, political fundraisers, and opinion leaders to be accountable to those who want to believe them. This freedom to mislead has been exploited by exponentially increased political fundraising since the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. The consequence is divisive culture wars destructive to member organizations, communities, and the country.

For example, an hereditary organization which requires birth certificates and other vital records for membership has a member who claims to be passionate about the organization’s founding principles and has spent several years igniting support for a protest against an anti-discrimination policy that includes “protected classes”.

This organization thrives on being non-political and non-partisan. But the member argues that the Board has added “protected classes” to its non-discrimination policy to advocate for the political rights of those who amend their birth certificate gender. The Board claims it is following local DC law to preempt losing its property tax exemption and licenses to operate. Additionally, it claims local chapters must accept a certified birth certificate even if amended or risk a discrimination lawsuit.

The influential member accuses the organization of fear tactics, claiming there is nothing to fear in litigation. The fact that litigation diverts funds and member participation from the organization’s mission is ignored. The fact that local chapters which have had to fund litigation have been destroyed is not remembered.

Is the member’s passion for this issue pure or motivated by money? It is impossible for the “buyer to beware” because the member is not required to disclose they are a paid political influencer, nor are the organizations which are doing the funding required to disclose how much they pay, directly or indirectly by paying the media channel to amplify the message.

Although the member’s resolution did not survive a vote of the membership, the influencer member continues to raise money and promote the cause. Although this suggests financial motivation is at play, at this point, supporters don’t care. The impact of disclosure is only credible when persistent not reactive. And disclosure is preemptive - when the media, the fundraisers and opinion leaders have to disclose, in my experience, misinformation is inherently discouraged.

Will this organization survive this divisive impact? Is the member an undisclosed funded political influencer? And who is behind the funding? Could it even be a group attempting to disarm the impact of this 100+ year old organization’s mission to promote patriotism during the America 250 celebration? We will never know.

Politicians, and the fundraisers they rely on, exploit the lack of disclosure regulations for political influencers and therefore are not motivated to initiate regulations. But consider how much less money they would need to raise if everyone had to disclose. And consider that we all might find the media to be much more balanced when it must disclose to distinguish between paid and unpaid editorial.

Please ask your representative to do the right thing and legislate the Federal Election Commission to enforce paid messaging disclosure across all media.