Election Hijinks

A new commentary every Wednesday - August 5, 2015

Facebook to Help Politicians Follow and Influence Voters.

Absolutely brilliant: political hijinks George Orwell never dreamed of when he wrote "1984." For the first time, Facebook is permitting political campaigns to track Facebook accounts; our "Comments" and our "Likes," in order to create a monster list of voters that will be targeted for special political messages and of course, solicitations for donations.

Here's how it is supposed to work: Facebook claims to have 189-million users in the United States. Let's begin with an example of one tiny sliver of the voter pie-chart. Someone posts an item on your Facebook wall about collecting seashells. We hit the "Like" button on any post and the connection to that specific item of interest is noted and saved in a "cloud" (actually a gigantic super-computer with tons of storage capability) owned by Facebook The bait is then set on the trap— just waiting for you to keep browsing. The Internet knows more about you than your mother, lover, lawyer, doctor or spouse combined do. It knows more about you than you know about you!

All campaigns or PACs (Political Action Committees) need to do in order to utilize this super-abundance of data, is upload the list of potential voters they hope to get to the polls at election time. By using Facebook's service, they will be able interrupt our Facebook browsing without their being beckoned by us—in order to tell us something we perhaps didn't heretofore know, repeat what we already know and pester us about taking this information now reinforced in our brains, to the polling place. As I understand "informational pages" can appear without warning. Facebook calls this "reaching the right people, in the right place with the perfect message." Howaboutthat?

If you're irritated by robo-calls at dinner time, if you got mailers upon mailers and if you tire of watching all of those interminable "messages" on TV with disclaimers at the bottom that flash on and off so quickly you don't know who or what obscure group of contributors to a PAC are paying for the advertising, look out. We are about to be stricken by another tsunami of advertising.

Stock Tip: Invest in companies that own newspapers, TV stations, radio stations, cable companies and outdoor advertising. Temporary political signage on our streets, that only politicians admire, will proliferate in enough numbers and size (have you noticed how they keep getting larger and more numerous each year), that they may soon blot out the sun.

If you are a Facebooker, just wait until next year. I only hope they will provide a way for us to opt-out, because all indications are that more money is piling up in candidates' coffers and in PACs than ever before; Associated Press says $380-million, much of it from a handful of wealthy donors.

Here we are, five months until the New Year and Hillary (the only candidate where you get two Presidents for the price of one), already has 16-million dollars in her war chest, the last time I checked. Ted Cruz recently raised $10-million in only 90 days. Jeb Bush is King of the Hill in raising donations; $103-million in the first six months of 2015.

I must repeat a question: why are so many donors giving so much? I would like to think that right or wrong, most do it because they honestly believe in a cause or because they believe that a candidate or a party and they are in sync, politically speaking. I suspect that for a few rich folks, it's merely a hobby. For some others it's hoping for the prestige of a diplomatic post, or perhaps even a cabinet position. However, most business interests, Big Pharmaceuticals, for example, believe that by doing so, they stand to gain favorable treatment. Many do. So, it's a proven beneficial business strategy.

Here's what is terribly wrong about this: our present Federal Supreme Court has paved the way for this by asserting that corporations giving dollars to a campaign is the equivalent of free speech coming from an individual. I hope to see this premise declared unconstitutional in my lifetime, for it gives some a greater advantage than they should be afforded.

It is a proven scientific fact: advertising can effect decision-making, sometimes adversely. It has been been termed "brain washing" for a long time, and for a good reason. If an untruth is repeated often enough, and long enough, people can be persuaded into believing anything, however fallacious.

The present situation is un-American and certainly undemocratic.

-Phil Richardson, Observer of the human condition and storyteller

Phil's current post can be read at: http://www.imrightagain.com

If you wish to comment, Phil can be reached at:

k7os (at) comcast (dot) net

"AgainRight"

THE PROSPERITY COAL COMPANY: My book about hard times and union wars in the coal fields, in times past.

$9.95, plus shipping For details on the novel, click: http://www.Amazon.com and enter "Prosperity Coal Company" in the search window.

Shop Amazon Fire TV - Say it. Watch it.

Our unending thanks to Jim Bromley, who programs our Archive of Prior Commentaries

Learn About the Savings with Prime from Amazon.com