I’ll take one more go at this.

There is nothing in the statute which prohibits any human being from making any political comment.  If Warren Buffett or George Soros or Ross Perot or Donald Trump or any other person with the resources to do it wants to run an ad or a movie, they’re obviously permitted to do so under the First Amendment.   Nothing that I can see in the statute would prohibit an individual from producing a movie and renting out a theater to show it, either.

I hate slippery slope arguments, but the issue of corporate personhood has been taken to such extremes (note that Rehnquist dissented in Belotti along with Brennan, Marshall, and White) that it’s important to point out that:

- People have limited lifespans.  Corporations don’t.   I think I’m safe in saying that every human being on Fortune’s 500 list will be dead in 120 years.  It’s a reasonable bet that at least 20% of the corporations on the corporate list will still exist in some form.

- People have the right to vote.  Corporations don’t.   I haven’t yet come across anyone arguing that any 18-year-old corporation should be able to cast a ballot, but it’s really not a far leap from free speech to the vote.  (As a sci-fi buff, I’ll also make a prediction that in my lifetime– I’m 37– the SCOTUS is going to have to make a decision on the personhood of an Artificial Intelligence program.  I hope I’m still young enough to see that argument.)

- Even such fundamental rights as equal protection do not fully apply to corporations.  Otherwise the corporate income tax would be held unconstitutional for its different rates and different scope of deductions.

- Corporations, at least in Delaware and Nevada, grant their privately held owners a degree of anonymity that in and of itself is incompatible with modern campaign finance law.  How do you know that each individual shareholder of a corporation is even legally entitled to make a contribution?  I’ve brought this up a couple of times, but it’s a really serious problem, even in the case of nonprofits.  People who are interested in the Second Amendment may be aware that there was actually something of a coup in the leadership of the NRA about 20 years back (on the surface, it may have seemed not much more than a move from Washington DC to the Outer Beltway, but the positions the organization took changed, sometimes dramatically).  What’s the remedy if a dues-paying member, or even a strong minority of dues-paying members, disagrees with the position espoused?

(I should point out that it sometimes seems that 2/3 of what I do during campaigns is write nice letters to would-be donors enclosing uncashed checks that used their corporate or LLC checkbooks by mistake or by ignorance– once I had to write such a letter to the candidate’s daughter, who naturally was not amused.)

As a history nitpicker, I’ll point out that the 1907 Tillman Act is actually almost entirely in sync with modern corporate law.  In 1907, New Jersey and Delaware were still in the race to the bottom for the most lenient corporate laws.  While some other states, like my native Pennsylvania, still required an act of the legislature to form a corporation in 1907, Delaware at least did not.  (New Jersey let Delaware win the race when a liberal do-gooder named Woodrow Wilson got elected governor and got stricter corporate laws passed.)  (I’ll also digress a bit further and state that in 1907 in Pennsylvania, any corporation was entitled to form its own police force, with full powers of armament, arrest, and detention.  These coal and iron police, as they were called, existed until the Great Depression.  But even if you were, say, a corporate grocery, you were entitled to a police force with guns and badges and the whole works.)

Finally, and I think I’m probably on my weakest ground here, since using foreign law, even for comparison, has become a bugaboo, I’d like to direct my fellow Americans’ attention to what’s been going on in Italy for the last few years.   Faced with the problem that Silvio Berlusconi owns all the private network TV stations and most of the newspapers, and with the corollary problem that his opposition would have to pay Berlusconi for airtime to run anti-Berlusconi ads, Italy in its last election simply outlawed TV political advertising.  Whether it made much of an impact on the outcome of the election, it’s hard to say (Berlusconi’s TV news programs are like something out of Orwell– light years beyond the worst things that liberals think about Fox News or conservatives think about MSNBC here), but my Italian relatives reported that for the first time in a long time, they felt like issues, rather than sound-bites, were being discussed.  Having just come off an election that seemed like it was between Sarah Palin and Bill Ayers, it sounds almost like democratic ecstasy.

For more on the distinction between corporate contributions and independent expenditures, I’ve added this post, by CCP President Sean Parnell, which is cross-posted at the Center for Competitive Politics’ website: www.campaignfreedom.org

Continuing campaign finance “reformers” pattern of dramatically misunderstanding what is at stake in Citizens United, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post yesterday unleashed a hysterical and factually-challenged column in advance of tomorrow’s crucial re-argument in front of the Supreme Court.

Early on, Dionne claims that “The court is considering eviscerating laws that have been on the books since 1907 and 1947 — in two separate cases — banning direct contributions and spending by corporations in federal election campaigns.”

The problem, of course, is that the Supreme Court is not “…considering eviscerating laws that… [ban] direct contributions… by corporations…” Only independent political speech by corporations (and unions) at stake in Citizens United. Claiming otherwise is to show that one has not bothered to let facts get in the way of a good hysterical rant.

Dionne continues his Bizarro World Joe Friday act (”Just leave out the facts, Ma’am”) when he states that there are “…precedents, dating to the 1976 Buckley campaign finance ruling, that the court would set aside if it were to throw out the prohibition on corporate money.” Here again, Dionne gets it completely backward. Buckley very explicitly ruled that independent political spending could not be limited (much less banned) because it poses no threat of corruption — and corruption or the appearance of are the only acceptable reasons for limiting money spent on political speech.

But the greatest twisting of facts is Dionne’s assertion that undoing the Austin decision (and the section of McConnell v. FEC that gave a pass to the “electioneering communications” restrictions in McCain-Feingold) would somehow run counter to precedent, something Chief Justice Roberts pledged a great deal of respect for in his confirmation hearings.

Dionne writes: “…there is one member of the court who has spoken eloquently about the dangers of ignoring precedents.

‘I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,’ he said. ‘Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness…’

This careful jurist continued: ‘And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments.’ He paraphrased Alexander Hamilton as saying in Federalist 78, ‘To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.’

Chief Justice John Roberts, the likely swing vote in this case, was exactly right when he said these things during his 2005 confirmation hearings. If he uses his own standards, it is impossible to see how he can justify the use of ‘arbitrary discretion’ to discard a well-established system whose construction began with the Tillman Act of 1907.”

Dionne’s error is in believing that overturning Austin would be an upending previous precedent, when in fact it would simply eliminate the decision that stands contrary to almost all other campaign finance precedents. As CCP Chairman Bradley A. Smith wrote previously, “…Austin has long been the odd man out in campaign finance jurisprudence, the case that doesn’t fit the mold.”

And of course Dionne doesn’t trouble himself to find out how things have worked out in the two dozen or so states that allow direct corporate contributions to candidates, let alone independent expenditures.

The general thrust of Dionne’s column, along with most of the “sky is falling” Chicken Littles of the campaign finance “reform” crowd, is that allowing the political speech of corporations and unions to be heard by American citizens represents a grave threat to the republic, presumably because the public might end up misinformed by these speakers (i.e. vote in ways the “reformers” don’t approve of).

Perhaps. But if Dionne is truly concerned about the American public being misinformed on political matters, perhaps he ought to start by applying a little bit of fact-checking to his own writing before he demands that others be excluded from the public arena before they have a chance to misinform?

Well, I’ll agree with you that Pitchfork Ben isn’t exactly my idea of a model Senator, but the history of it is all but irrelevant. I mean, after all, it’s been pretty much proven that the framers of the 14^th Amendment had no intent to grant individual rights to corporations, and yet we’ve kept Santa Clara enshrined as the law of the land for 120 years, and no Justices but Douglas and Black have ever suggested changing it.

There is obviously a distinction between a third party expenditure and a first party expenditure, but I think it is a distinction without a difference. First National Bank v. Belotti was the first of this line of corporate speech cases, and it seems clear to me, rereading it, that the major distinction between Belotti and this Hillary movie case is that in Belotti, the legislation to abolish corporate election expenditures was passed to abolish specific speech– relating to a referendum on a graduated state income tax which businesses like the First National Bank opposed. This case would seem to be equally anti-speech to all sides, as it were, which makes it more of a time, place and manner restriction. There’s a compelling interest in running fair elections, and given the rather appalling history of corporate money in politics, from Standard Oil and the Railroads at the turn of the 20^th Century, to ITT in the Nixon administration (for younger readers, they paid for the Republican National Convention in 1972, in exchange for having antitrust charges dropped) to any number of examples today.

This post expands the scope of the debate and  responds to an outside post by Frank Askin, a Professor of Law and Director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School, at NJ Voices.

Askin’s piece addresses three alleged shortcomings in the free speech side of Citizens United v. FEC, specifically as defended by noted First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams on the Bill Moyers Journal Friday.

Askin’s issues are (1) the longstanding ban on corporate political donations, (2) the distinction between member-based union speech and shareholder corporate speech, and (3) the constitutional distinction of “We the People” not bestowing First Amendment rights on corporations.

Center for Competitive Politics Chairman Brad Smith addressed these specific issues at length at a Cato Institute policy debate today with American University law professor and Maryland state Sen. Jamin Raskin. The video is available here and is embedded at the end of this post.

First, as the Center for Competitive Politics has noted several times, the Tillman Act of 1907 is not at issue in this case. The Act banned direct contributions by corporations to candidates, whereas Citizens United is about corporate — and by extension, union — independent expenditures. By definition, candidates have no control over such speech. We’ve also addressed the muddled history of the Tillman Act, which was motivated in part by racist sentiments, and addressed a corporate environment much different than exists today:

The Tillman Act’s sponsor was Sen. “Pitchfork” Benjamin Tillman (D-SC), a notorious racist and proponent of Jim Crow laws. He pushed the corporate contribution ban as a way to kneecap corporations opposed to his agenda because they did not want the added expense of providing separate accommodations for different races or restrictions on hiring black workers.

Second, as Brad Smith has previously blogged about, the argument that corporate independent expenditures are fundamentally different than member-based union expenditures and violate shareholders’ rights doesn’t make sense for at least two reasons: (1) Corporations already spend money on charitable contributions that can have political overtones and direct lobbying that shareholders may disagree with. This is a matter for corporate governance legislation, perhaps requiring management to inform shareholders of political spending, not a matter of broad campaign finance law. (2) This distinction is overkill — incredibly broad. It doesn’t allow ideological corporations that people join precisely to further their political views to speak and also silences closely held corporations in which there are no dissenting shareholders.

Third, Askin suggests that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations, that the Framers somehow decided to leave out a class of people from the “We the People” preamble of the U.S. Constitution. He makes the case, a common refrain of “reformers” that corporations are artificial entities that can amass great wealth. There are several problems with this line of argument: (1) Corporations are associations of people — shareholders, employees, etc.; by affirmingtheir First Amendment right to associate, they do not give up their First Amendment right to free speech.

“Reformers” presumably acknowledge the First Amendment rights of non-profit corporations not covered under Austin, so-called MFCL organizations that are allowed to use their general treasuries for independent expenditures, and media corporations like the New York Times Co. It may have been defensible in the 1970s to only allow a media exemption for the establishment press, but in this modern era of You Tube, the line between established and new media is blurring. Why should an organization like Citizens United (or Michael Moore) seeking to produce a political documentary enjoy less of a First Amendment right than FOX News or MSNBC producing a similarly scathing documentary about Barack Obama or Sarah Palin, respectively? Simply because the state recognizes a legal aspect of a corporation does not mean its members are simply an artificial being notentitled to First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment protects the “freedom of speech,” not just the speech of U.S. Citizens. Foreign citizens, media organizations, minors, non-profits and other people and organization who aren’t citizens are allowed First Amendment rights (not necessarily donating to candidates, which is covered under a different legal rationale).

Ultimately, it is Frank Askin who is defending the indefensible — the right of the government to censor and restrict political speech.

I hope Lionel addresses this distinction further, but what’s at issue in this case is not direct contributions to candidates but independent expenditures that advocate for or against a federal candidate. This isn’t about whether Apple can contribute $1 million to Nancy Pelosi’s re-election but whether Apple can run a $1 million ad campaign saying Nancy Pelosi has been good or bad for Silicon Valley and should (or should not) be re-elected.

Brad Smith, the chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, and a former FEC Chairman, spoke on this issue today at a panel discussion about this case at the Cato Institute. This distinction was addressed at length.

Furthermore, it’s important to recognize the actual purpose behind the 102-year-old statute cited here: the Tillman Act of 2007.

Brad Smith addressed this related issue on Citizens United v. FEC in a recent Washington Examiner op-ed:

“Reformers,” also bemoan the demolition of a “century-old statute.” In fact, the Tillman Act of 1907, held up by campaign finance reformers as the sacred law banning corporate contributions, is — as one would expect of a 100-year-old law — outdated and out of step with modern politics and technology.

It was passed at a time when corporations were new and uncommon. Today, nearly every corner barber shop and non-profit organization is incorporated.

The Tillman Act’ssponsor was Sen. “Pitchfork” Benjamin Tillman (D-SC), a notorious racist and proponent of Jim Crow laws. He pushed the corporate contribution ban as a way to kneecap corporations opposed to his agenda because they did not want the added expense of providing separate accommodations for different races or restrictions on hiring black workers.

Campaign finance regulations are often about politicians or interests limiting dissent, silencing critics, and protecting their power — not promoting reform or curbing corruption.

Hi, I’m Lionel Artom-Ginzburg. I’m a lawyer in Pennsylvania whose practice includes a fair bit of election and campaign finance law.

The history of corporate restrictions on campaign contributions is extensive– 1907 for Federal elections, and older for some state elections. The rationale is pretty obvious: unlike individual or PAC contributions, corporate contributions are much more difficult to track. Individuals and PACs have all their donors listed, these days, online. If, for example, Apple Computer were allowed to make donations directly to candidates, who’s to say who is making that contribution? The Board? The Shareholders? Steve Jobs himself? Some person in middle management with access to one of Apple’s checkbooks? What if I’m a shareholder and don’t agree with the contribution? What’s my recourse? To sell the stock? To file a derivative action for waste? To show up at the next annual meeting and try to get a minute and a half of management’s time to let them know how unhappy I am? The notion of a corporate right to free speech in elections is much more recent– 1978.

Hiding the origin of money is, in other circumstances, a very serious crime in our society (ask Tom DeLay). Yet there’s no way you could permit corporate expenditures on elections without also permitting the anonymous sourcing of money in those elections. Is there a compelling enough interest here to overturn a 102 year old statute?

Let’s start this debate by examining the many recent media reports discussing Citizens United v. FEC.

First, I’ll disclose the Center for Competitive Politics’ interest in this case.  We filed a friend-of-the-court brief when the Supreme Court initially considered the case. We also filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the rehearing of the case, which will occur tomorrow. Our chairman, former FEC Chairman Brad Smith, also filed an independent friend-of-the-court brief along with other former FEC commissioners.

Brad also recently published this New York Post op-ed and blog post on the case.

Our basic position on the case can be summarized from the N.Y. Post op-ed:

If political speech can be banned merely because it is produced or distributed by a corporation or with some corporate funding, then (as the government now argues) books, movies, newspapers, TV and radio could be prohibited from any political speech or programming. Surely this is anathema to the First Amendment.

As currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, the First Amendment provides greater protection for flag burning, nude dancing, simulated child pornography and tobacco ads than for core political speech.

The Citizens United case provides an opportunity for the court to return to first principles and declare that the words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law . . .” apply to all Americans, not just those whose speech is favored by politicians.

Below is an exhaustive list of recent media articles on the case. I’ll be pulling out bits of certain articles later on today to discuss the case.

Wall Street Journal, op-ed: The Chance for a Free Speech Do-Over; Will the Supreme Court finally overturn McCain-Feingold and enforce the First Amendment?

Washington Post, editorial: Exercise Caution; Supreme Court should respect precedent in deciding Wednesday’s campaign-finance case

Washington Post, op-ed (Robert Kaiser): Will Deep Pockets Always Win? It’s In Roberts’s Court.

Washington Post, op-ed (E.J. Dionne): A Test Case for Roberts

New York Times, editorial: A Threat to Fair Elections

Washington Times: Justices take on campaign-law challenge

Politico: SCOTUS campaign case could boost GOP

Boston Globe, op-ed: Corporate free speech? Since when?

AP: Hillary movie puts campaign finance limits at risk

CNN: Analysis: Lines drawn as campaign finance case nears

CBS, Andrew Cohen’s Court Watch: Sonia’s Featured Role in ‘Hillary: The Movie’

The Hill: Supreme Court to hear campaign finance case

SCOTUS Blog: Argument preview: Corporations in politics

Legal Times/First Amendment Center: ‘Hillary movie’ case: courtroom drama

ABA Journal: Hillary: The Law Changer; Unusual pre-term rehearing may reshape campaign finance laws

Houston Chronicle, op-ed: Court should keep ban on campaign spending

American Constitution Society: Citizens United v. FEC Panel: Video Now Available

Chris’ well thought-out response to my initial post demonstrates that even among those who are not supporters of Governor Palin, there is broad-based agreement that she is likely to remain a significant figure in conservative electoral politics. I think the more significant point of contention is whether she warrants the level of attention and enthusiasm she garners, and whether she should be a credible candidate for office. However, I have to say that I think most of the seemingly endless discussions around this topic by the talking heads on cable, and throughout the blogosphere, are a frivolous, if not overtly cynical, waste of time.

Partly because most of the people who engage in these discussions are committed partisans who will never change their minds about Palin (pro or con). But more importantly because at this stage of the (non) election cycle, I think the time, energy, and sheer passion invested in these discussions would be far more productively spent debating issues rather than personalities. (My comment about the “overtly cynical” nature of many of these discussions is in reference to the fact that they are often initiated chiefly to stir up controversy and boost traffic/ratings.)

But of course the fact that there continues to be so much interest in Sarah Palin as a media personality only reinforces my point about the emerging preeminence of celebrity politics – another point in which Chris and I seem to be mostly in agreement. However, whether she can translate her undeniable “Q-rating” into broader electoral support remains a point of contention between us.

This is where I think some recent poll data on Sarah Palin’s post-resignation popularity may be enlightening. While the headline on this Rasmussen poll released last week declares that a not insignificant 40% of GOP voters believe that her resignation will hurt her chances in 2012, there is more encouraging data buried within the poll results. The survey included standard favorability ratings comparing the leading GOP candidates for 2012. Palin rated at the top of the list with a 76% overall favorability rating (Romney was a close second at 73%), and she finished just below Romney on the question of who the respondents would pick as their candidate for President in 2012.

And of greater relevance to the question of whether she can expand her support, this Gallup survey of all voters from last week demonstrates not only that Palin continues to garner very strong support amongst Republicans, with 72% saying they’d be likely to vote for her in 2012, but that even among independent voters, a healthy 44% say they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for her. Considering how far off 2012 is at this stage, I think she is actually starting with a decent level of support, even among independents. And this in spite of what most conservatives view as a biased and unfair media focus on her perceived shortcomings over the past 9 months. (In fact, this same poll demonstrates that 53% of all Americans view Palin’s media coverage as “unfairly negative”).

Which makes this a good time to bring up Chris’ claim that Palin is doing herself no favors by continuing to directly criticize the media for their treatment of her. The problem with this assertion is that it is mostly untrue. While conservatives at large have protested loudly and often to this effect, Palin herself has by and large ignored the media onslaught against her, both prior to and subsequent to the election. No doubt Chris or other opponents can single out a complaint or two from Palin (e.g. in reference to the Letterman dust-up or even her recent resignation speech). But when considered in proportion to the sheer volume of mostly negative, and in some cases completely outrageous, media coverage of Palin beginning last August, I think it’s patently unfair to suggest that she has made a point of portraying herself as a victim of the media. I see this as just another liberal meme propagated by the denizens of HuffPo, DailyKos, etc., which has virtually no basis in fact.

Now on this topic, I’d like to concede that Chris’ last post demonstrates I think that it would be unfair to characterize his own viewpoints as “stridently liberal”. In fact, in some ways his assessment of the issues surrounding Palin is more balanced than what I’ve read from some who identify themselves as staunch conservatives. But I do think Chris’ recital of some of the standard criticisms of Palin demonstrates the degree to which his own bias influences the sources he reads and considers, and ultimately his perspective. For example, he falsely attributes Tina Fey’s “I can see Russia from my house” line to Palin. A joke which was based on an actual interview Palin did with ABC’s Charlie Gibson. However, I think any objective observer would have to admit this was overall a fairly impressive performance on her part. (Demonstrated by the fact that her haters seized on and propagated her less impressive performance with Katie Couric.)

Chris also fairly points out that I failed to address the more substantive criticisms of Palin’s performance during the campaign (e.g. the Couric interview). It would be silly of course for me to argue that her performance with Couric and in all other circumstances was flawless. With the lights on and camera running, every candidate says things they regret, and forgets things in the pressure of the moment. I think the most telling point to make with regards to this is to consider the current holder of the Office of Vice President. Seriously, has there ever been a more prolific source of gaffes than Joe Biden? Yet, I don’t remember anyone outside of the conservative realm seriously questioning whether Biden was a liability for the Obama campaign. Frankly, I don’t remember any of his numerous verbal screw-ups being covered by the mainstream media at all. Certainly not to the degree which Palin’s faux-pas were magnified and perpetuated throughout the media. My point is not that these aren’t fair criticisms of Palin, but that how one evaluates the long-term significance of these types of issues tends to be based on the perspective you come in with.

I want to make just one more important point with regards to this discussion for now. As anyone knows who has followed or participated in debates related to Palin in the blogging world, these discussions commonly devolve into name-calling sessions where any conservative who opposes Palin is labeled as an “elitist”. With the reverse implication being that you must be a Bible-thumping hick with limited intellectual capacity in order to see any good reason to support her. Not only are these types of discussions wholly unproductive, but I think they also mask a more important discussion which should be taking place amongst conservatives. And that is the role of government within society.

A core principle for many conservatives, myself included, is that the government should play a relatively limited role within society, as intended by the Constitution. Rather than looking at government as the solution to every problem, in overly simplified terms, we want a government which protects our basic rights and freedoms and then gets the heck out of the way. So as a corollary to this, we aren’t looking for political leaders who see the government as the solution to every problem. We’re looking for leaders who share our core principles of individual liberty and responsibility, and who respect the traditions and historical greatness of America. As a result, for many conservatives it really isn’t all that important for our leaders to be uber-geniuses when it comes to law and policy. Or for them to have extensive experience within the institutions of government. (In fact, this may even be considered a liability.) And of course with the preeminence of individualism, and the private sector over the public, personal accomplishments and business success count for a lot.

I think only in this context can the enthusiasm and support for Sarah Palin be understood. But reasonable people can disagree, and many serious-minded Republicans have legitimate concerns as to whether Sarah Palin has the requisite qualifications and experience to be considered a credible candidate. Especially in relation to other possible candidates. And it’s not unreasonable for limited government advocates to share these concerns as well. But her greatest appeal I believe will be to those who share and are inspired by these values. And if she chooses to run, I think the opportunity to expand her base of support will be in attracting more people to the conservative movement, not in trying to reinvent herself as a policy wonk. By 2012, there will likely be an even larger contingent of Americans who’ve grown tired of the government asserting itself over every sector of our society. Sarah Palin may very well have the combination of core values, personal charisma, and political acumen necessary to successfully launch the next phase of the conservative movement.

Thanks to Morgen for his sharp response and very kind words towards myself and my fellow co-blogging members of the League of Gentlemen (though I assure you we are quite ordinary).

I agree with Morgen’s argument that Sarah Palin can not run a national campaign from Alaska so it makes sense for a number of reasons for her to roll the dice and attempt to claim territory in the now wide open leadership void within the GOP.  I also agree with his analysis of campaigns (particularly post-Obama but preceding him) as built around celebrity-hood and personality issues.  In comparison to a Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, whatever else is to be said about her, has wattage. It can be argued that the media loves to hate her, but that attitude still involves love.  By media standards a Romney or Pawlenty is a nothing-burger (again fair or unfair, that’s the harsh truth of the media-age politics).

I don’t think however that she has a strong chance of moving that personality politics movement into an elected position going forward.  So perhaps we arguing over our sense of the meaning of success/failure.  If she continues on, let’s imagine gets the GOP nomination (which I still think is a fairly outside shot), then loses (maybe big-time) to Obama, did she fail?  Did she succeed?  Did she ever really have a chance?

Whatever the answers to those question, she needs to find some concrete outlet or the same media technologies and fascination that has fueled interest in her will quickly dissipate (out beyond her core following). I doubt she will want to go for a Alaskan Congressional seat.  She could perhaps find some place on a board at a political advocacy group like American Enterprise or something.  Morgen mentions new media technologies as a possible outlet and that certainly is a possibility (maybe a talk radio show, webepisodes of political commentary, and the like, I don’t know).

Morgen is right that I did think (and continue to think) that Sarah Palin was unqualified for a job of Vice President and therefore of President.  But I don’t agree with his characterization of my position as expressing the  most “stridently liberal interpretation of these types of issues”.  On the specific Letterman point, Letterman made an awful completely out of line joke–which he himself admitted and apologized for, genuinely apologized for I believe and offered a hand for reconciliation and she came back continuing to (as I said) pick the fight.  She could have accepted his apology and appeared magnanimous.  Instead to me it showed a kind of subordination of everything to her belief in being persecuted by the media.  It became a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy and that has only left her open to more criticism which again I think hurts.

As she (in)famously said you can’t blink.  You can’t back down.  That attitude that earned her the nickname Barrucuda endears her to some, but turns her off to others she desperately needs if she ever wants to fulfill the higher ambitions for which I think she feels herself destined.  One thing to be a fighter; another to be unwilling to admit you have ever goofed.  I’m not sure it’s a guaranteed dealbreaker (few things in politics are), but on balance I believe they hurt.

For some perspective, I actually thought some of the coverage of her during the campaign (and since) has been very unfair.  I don’t think she is in anyway some special breed of specifically horrible politician.  I think of her as pretty much a normal politician in our contemporary US age:  probably a little thin-skinned, highly ambitious, not entirely clear on their governing philosophies or how to concretely effect change, and generally more interested in winning than in governing.  That might be considered a cynical view, but it’s not singling her out for special approbation.  I’ve never understood this kind of special animus towards her.  Her persona is certainly unique in it’s way, but it doesn’t strike me as fundamentally different from the rest.  In fact, I think she’s pretty normal…for a US politician.  That’s hardly the most stridently liberal position on Sarah Palin.

And to be even fairer to Sarah Palin, the fact that I thought her at the time unqualified for the job of Vice President was really a criticism of John McCain not Sarah Palin.  He picked her without it seems to me adequately having assessed her past, her person, her capacity for the job, etc.  That reflected poorly on McCain and his campaign.

Now that Sarah Palin is wanting to move out into her own, however, that political albatross is around her neck.  Protestations of unfair treatment from the media are not going to endear her long term to the kinds of people she needs to move to her side.  That kind of rhetoric I believe only appeals to those already within that politico-linguistic worldspace.  In what I will call a reverse Nixon, she’s not going have the media to kick around forever–at least in a way that will win her expanding support.

To be clear, it isn’t only the drama/potential scandal elements that float around Palin alone that hurt her image with the broader public in my mind but events like the Katie Couric interview, the “I can see Russia from my house” comment, as well as the cultural warrior stance that is the real problem for her.  Morgen I don’t think adequately responded to those criticisms, instead focusing alone on the scandal tabloidish/liberal media bias angle, usually a deflecting defensive ploy by Palin herself and her supporters.

When even Bill Kristol says that she needs to work hard studying for issues in order to win over skeptics, then you know she needs some work.  When Peggy Noonan writes this, you got problems.  Like Lucy, Sarah’s got some ’splaining (not blaming) to do.

–

Afterthought:

Re: the poll Morgen cited concerning the Upper Midwest, those numbers could support an alternate theory as well.

While it’s true conservative identification has risen slightly in those states, the analysis of that poll reads:

A plurality of residents in each of the three Upper Midwestern states view themselves as politically moderate – averaging 45.3 percent in Minnesota, 42.4 percent in Iowa, and 41.1 percent in Wisconsin during this five-year span.

My central point is that Palin has a very negative image with moderates.  We already know she has stratospheric uber-negatives among liberals. I think this negative press hurts because it can give credence to the prime vulnerability to Palin (esp. among moderates/independents):  her perceived lack of readiness.  The only bad press that really hurts is the stuff that re-confirms the negative storyline.

That fact–not the negative press itself–is what is really hurting her with the party GOP establishment.  For her to capitalize on her grassroots support will require donors, funding, and some support from the bigwigs in the party.  If this GOP uptick Morgen points to is going to be leveraged by Palin she is going to have to have some party support.  Acting in the manner she has been of late (again not even really the decision itself but the poorly, shoddily way it’s been handled) is really closing some doors she needs to stay open.

During campaigns one, sometimes two, issues/concerns/events come to override the rest and the election often becomes a ratification or nullification of various candidates’ responses to those events.  In 2008 it was the economic crisis, which McCain handled very poorly and as a result lost.

Sarah Palin will need to work on a number of issues so that when something does break in a campaign, she will be able to respond. Otherwise those moderates will remember the VP candidate who turned them off in ‘08, assuming she even gets that far.

Thank you Chris for getting this kicked off. Prior to starting this debate, I had a chance to review some of your work over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen blog. And I must commend you and your co-bloggers for generally staying true to your moniker. (The “Gentleman” part, not the “Ordinary”). You run a very thought-provoking site with a respectful tone towards your audience and commenters. Which is a relative rarity in the blogging arena – so kudos. And on to the debate!

I guess I have to open by saying that it seems it would not be all that unreasonable for me to declare victory on the basis of your opening statement alone. For if the primary subject of this debate is whether Sarah Palin’s resignation will end, or even just be detrimental, to her political career, it seems we may be generally in agreement. I am referring of course to the fact that you seem to have readily conceded that she will continue to be a major factor in conservative politics moving forward, and in fact go so far as to say that you could see her “making a serious run (maybe even winning) the GOP nomination”. (Granted, you qualified this statement by saying “with luck” you could see her doing so).

Of course you also seem to indicate by your statements that you personally feel she is unqualified for office at a national level. While you are certainly entitled to hold this opinion, and are one of many who do so, I would like to take issue with a couple of the statements you made in relation to this.

In particular, I take exception to your statement that the “demographic population of [Palin's] base is shrinking”. Recent poll results indicate that this is clearly not the case. For example, there is this recent analysis of poll results in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin which demonstrates that there has been a significant upswing in conservatism in these states over the past 2 years. I think this sampling is very significant as these are all states which Obama handily won, yet also represent the type of middle America sort of states where Palin is likely to have the broadest appeal.  And furthermore, at a national level this Gallup poll from just last month clearly demonstrates that far from being on the wane, the self-identification of voters as “conservative” is in the midst of a significant upswing. A trend which I think will only be accelerated by the failed policies and massive deficit spending of the Obama Administration.

I also think you greatly overstate the impact Palin’s various personal “scandals” have had on the broader electorate’s perception of her. To a large extent these scandals have been generated and/or perpetuated by the tabloid-like media focus on her and her family. A reader need look no further than your comment that Palin was “picking fights with David Letterman” to pick up on the biased angle in which you have personally evaluated these events. Letterman was completely out of order in his comments about Palin’s daughter, and what mother of any decency would not take issue with this…much less a public figure of Palin’s stature. Frankly, I find it somewhere between surprising and disappointing that you seem to have adopted the most stridently liberal interpretation of these types of issues surrounding Palin. (Although far from the blatantly dishonest and insane level of fixation that someone like Andrew Sullivan has demonstrated). I am confident that the average non-partisan, American voter has a far more balanced impression of Palin, and sees most of these faux-controversies as the tabloid fodder they are.

(I believe recent poll data from after Palin’s resignation was announced corroborates this claim, but in the interest of moving this discussion along I will save a look at this for a future post.)

Let me quickly run through what I think is the most significant point regarding Palin’s resignation, and the impact it will have on her career going forward. First of all, I do not believe stepping down as Governor of AK was a calculated move on her part to further her political career. However, as I noted in my post on this topic at Verum Serum, I do think that her resignation will ultimately prove to have been a good move towards this end. (If a national political career of some sort is her objective, which certainly seems to be the case.) The reason is simple. The dynamics of national level politics are changing rapidly, with the concentration of power, influence, and money shifting from national party structures to focused, popularity-based campaigns centered around individual candidates and issues-based groups. (I called this the “era of politician as celebrity” on my blog). The proliferation of internet access/usage and the advent of social networking tools such as Facebook, Twitter, etc. has hastened this along, and frankly I think we are still in the relatively early stages of this revolution. In other words, the success of the Obama campaign was only a preview of the impact this celebrity-based approach and use of internet technology will have going forward.

Sticking around governing the State of AK (which most in the Lower 48 pay no attention to), while dealing with an endless stream of frivolous ethical complaints, and unfair personal attacks on her and her family, would have afforded Palin very little time and energy to further advance her agenda and base of support amongst a broader national audience. While personally I think it may be best for her to get out of the spotlight for a while, and remove herself from the line of fire (including “friendly” fire), she will now have plenty of time to regain the enthusiasm and sense of purpose which attracted so many to her to begin with. And in the process I believe she can get a head start on leveraging all the new media technologies to expound on her vision/agenda and expand her base of support.

I am in full agreement with Chris that it will be key for Palin to do so in order to be a serious candidate for national office in 2012…or 2016. However, as noted above, we seem to have some serious disagreements about the challenges she may face in the process. But what fun would a debate be without some disagreement? Personally, I think Sarah Palin has an incredible future ahead of her. She is a rare talent who possesses the combination of character and ability necessary to inspire and garner support amongst a diverse group of Americans. And there is no question that if it’s her desire to do so, she will be a significant factor in conservative politics and the movement at large going forward.