Thanks for the coverage of the complaint by the DGA against Fox News. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/democrats_accuse_fox_news_of_illegal_contribution.php

Ever since the $1,000,000 corporate contribution from News Corp. to the Republican Governors Association became public, I have been pondering the effects of that type of corporate/political party connection on financial disclosure rules, journalistic ethics, and other legal ramifications.  Especially as I have watched the parade of Republican candidates and officeholders from Arizona before the Fox hosts.

I am confident that a strong argument can be made that News Corp. is providing an (unreported) in-kind contribution EVERY TIME Fox News (or the WSJ, etc.) provides a one-sided forum to state and federal candidates.

The nexus between Fox News and Republicans is now so strong that Fox has lost the ability to legitimately claim that their one-sided political interviews (and now, apparently, infomercials) are beyond the reach of the campaign-related laws simply because of the constitutional freedom of the press.

Campaign finance and disclosure laws/rules have to bear a very heavy burden if they are to get anywhere close to the freedoms of speech or the press.  However, this new, stronger-than-before connection between Fox and the GOP fairly screams for justifiably requiring on-air, real-time disclosure of the contributions, and treating the air time as in-kind contributions.

Disclosure  - in a size equal to candidate's website addresses or other information - has been upheld as not violating constitutional protections.  Requiring disclosure and accounting for in-kind contributions are established as not violating constitutional protections. 

Requiring "equal time" on any media outlet has not been so established (and should not be), but that is not what is at issue here.  What IS at issue is that Fox News/News Corp. has now thumbed its nose at the electoral system by saying we can donate, we can provide massive amounts of valuable airtime to our favored candidates, and we can do this without subjecting any of our multi-pronged efforts to your state and federal election laws/rules.

Existing laws or rules - either at the federal level and/or the state level - should be enforced and/or new laws or rules should be put into place to rein in this new corporate/party behemoth.  The current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court makes it unlikely that it would ultimately rule in favor of any party seeking to subject News Corp. to U.S., but I believe that lower courts (state, fed) could see the issue differently.

It certainly seems like a debate worth having, and having SOON.