If I own six companies, can I get six votes?

Why shouldn’t corporations be allowed to vote or hold office? If Citizens United gives these institutions the same free speech rights as individuals, wouldn’t voting and running for office be appropriate as well? Indirectly, one could argue that corporations already vote and hold office. They do it through individuals that represent their interests. However, there are legal reasons why an entity can’t vote or hold office. We operate under the rule of “one person, one vote.” Since one person can own and operate many corporations, would it be possible for one person to cast many ballots?

“I would not know how to extend the concept of a citizen to such an entity even if I thought it was a good idea. And I certainly would not want to let corporations vote, given that individuals can set up multiple corporations at the drop of a hat.” (Epstein, pg 646) The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by Congress in 1947, was the first law barring unions and corporations from making independent expenditures in support of or opposition to federal candidates (Abrams, pg 19) but, with Citizens United, the environment has changed and concerns about the corporate take-over of American politics is on the rise. Many feel these concerns are unwarranted.

In the article, Six Myths About Campaign Money, Eliza Carney states, “I don't think you're suddenly going to find 1 percent of corporate gross expenditures moving into politics, largely because there were so many ways to spend that money before". In fact, an argument exists that Citizens United is more advantageous for unions than for corporations. Corporations must answer to stakeholders (Carney, pg 2) and unpopular choices can cause financial problems. The same cannot be said for unions. “Corporate boards have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, and it is an open question whether particular campaign contributions could be a violation of their duties on the ground that they deal with matters unrelated to the interests of the corporation.” (Epstein, pg 656)

But, it seems the decision of Citizens United was more about immediate implications and less about future ramifications. “Although much of the immediate reaction to Citizens United focused on the decision’s short-term impact on political spending, the doctrinal impact of the decision is likely to be more significant.” (Kang, pg 243) Undoubtedly, Citizens United will have an impact that will “extend over many decisions and years.” (Kang, pg 248)

Why can’t corporations or unions vote or hold office? Common sense tells us that a group is not an individual. Corporations and unions represent a collection of individuals but they do not have the same limitations inherent to individuals. “Human beings die, do not enjoy economic advantages like limited liability and, most important, have a conscience that sometimes transcends crude economic self-interest.” (Abrams, pg 21) President Obama said in his State of the Union Address, "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities." (Epstein, pg 653) While Carney disagrees with the Presidents “dire prediction” and feels these concerns have yet to “materialize”, the future impact of Citizens United cannot be ignored. “The ruling has sweeping, long-term ramifications, election-law experts and even some conservatives say. The decision signals a turnabout on the Supreme Court and a seismic shift in constitutional and campaign finance law.” (Carney, pg 2)

Reactions to Citizens United have ranged from public shock (Teachout, pg 186) to accusations of sidestepping by the court (Youn, pg 144). The “real” ramifications of Citizens United have yet to have a severe impact on the political world. The “perceived” ramifications are troubling. As an example, since 1985, I have founded 3 NPOs, 1 LLC, and 1 Sole Proprietorship. If corporations and organizations someday have the right to vote, I should be entitled to at least 6 votes; including my individual vote. While it may be rare for one vote to alter the outcome of an election, six votes could certainly have an impact.

If this option is made possible by Citizens United, I hope common sense will prevail.

References
Abrams, F. (2011). Debating Citizens United. The Nation, 292(5), 19-23. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Carney, E. N. (2010). Six Myths About Campaign Money. National Journal, 8(7), 2. Retrieved November 14, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Epstein, R. A. (2011). CITIZENS UNITED V. FEC: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT BIG CORPORATIONS SHOULD HAVE BUT DO NOT WANT. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; , 34(2), 639-661. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Kang, M. S. (2011). AFTER CITIZENS UNITED. Indiana Law Review, 44(2), 243-254. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Teachout, Z. (2011). The Historical Roots of Citizens United v. FEC: How Anarchists and Academics Accidentally Created Corporate Speech Rights. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 5(1), 163-187. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

Youn, M. (2011). First Amendment Fault Lines and the Citizens United Decision.. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 5(1), 135-161. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from the Academic Search Complete database.

A Place at the Table

A web designer, an advertising sales manager, a social media expert, a grants writer, a journalist and a media relations specialist all sit at a table. This sounds like the beginning of a joke. In fact, for many in the communication profession, the concept of integrating all of these facets into a cohesive whole is a joke. But who’s laughing? As a member of the previously mentioned meeting, I can speak to the fact that this was no laughing matter. The purpose of the meeting was to “coordinate efforts so the organization could speak with one voice.” This type of meeting is commonplace in small NPOs and companies, and is met with a moderate amount of success. However, larger institutions confront more opposition to IMC. Why? Is the concept of IMC too much of a joke for larger corporations, or is the table just not big enough?

In the Smith article, Representing PR in the Marketing Mix: A Study on Public Relations Variables in Marketing Mix Modeling, we read, “A recent report from the Council of Public Relations Firms revealed that the disciplines of corporate communications are converging (Rand & Rodriguez, 2007). Past norms rendering public relations departments separate from marketing departments are no longer appropriate in this age of consumerism in which consumers aggregate all messages from a company in making a decision to interact with the company.” (Schultz, 1996). In fact, in previous course blogs, I have addressed the rise of social media and Web 2.0 programs and how marketing and PR are finding common ground in ways never before seen in the communication field. David Meerman Scott also addresses these issues in his book, The New Rules of Marketing and PR. So why is there such a perceived struggle with the concept of IMC?

While I believe that corporations and larger institutions carry some of the burden of this problem, I place a great deal of the responsibility of the members of the communication profession. If we can’t speak with “one voice” concerning our profession, how can we offer an integrated voice to our organizations and publics? As an example, I recently attended the BEA/NAB conference and, this November, I will be attending the NCA conference. My fields of knowledge include Marketing, PR, Public Speaking, and Theatre. As a marketing professional, I am welcomed with a metaphorical place at the table. As a PR professional, I am asked to sit with the marketing professional. As a public speaker, I am told my skills were once useful, but no longer a prominent discipline in the field of communication. And, as a theatre professional, I am made to feel that I have walked into the wrong conference. Is this a joke? If we are going to practice IMC in the professional world, perhaps the lesson begins at home. A greater sense of integration with our colleagues is the first step.

IMC does work. I have experienced it with small organizations. It is also the future of our field. According to Smith, ‘Integrated marketing communication (IMC) is a strategic approach to corporate communication that entails the coordination of all company communications to present a harmonious and consistent message to consumers and publics.” This is no laughing matter. The quicker that we can embrace the power of IMC and respect the value of all communication fields, the more equipped we will be at serving our organizations and publics.

Ignore the inevitable, and the joke will be on us.

Making something legal doesn't always make something right

During the summer of 2003, a small NPO was the source of several press releases announcing the financial success of the organization. The NPO promoted to the public a status of financial solvency after three years of economic problems. A new CEO had been hired, and within a year, the institution was now operating in the black. What followed was a scandal that resulted in the firing of the CEO and full disclosure revealing a debt of nearly one million dollars.

Technically, the NPO did not lie in its press releases. The debt was real, but was hidden with creative bookkeeping. The organization was able to post positive numbers by estimating its value based on the total worth of all assets if they were liquidated. While it was true the NPO had no money, it would be debt free if it sold off all of its assets. Of course, selling the assets would have put the organization out of business, which is something it did not want to do. The NPO did not reveal to the public the creative accounting of the CEO, nor did it reveal the past management history of the CEO. Legally, the rights were on the side of the NPO. But was this full disclosure?

Although this is only one example, the same rights apply to corporations engaging in international trade. International Trade Law states, “There must be full disclosure of the conditions of the business, or of those affecting competition, including, in particular, the capacity of the preferred producers to fix the prices for the market.” (Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States Campbell)  However, the concept of full disclosure is open to interpretation. In reality, corporations are only responsible for full discloser within the requirements of the law. If a CEO is being investigated by the SEC for previous infractions, and if those infractions do not directly affect the corporation he or she worked for, the corporation is not obligated to reveal this information. In Central Bank of Denver, N. A., Petitioner v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A. and Jack K. Naber, the court states, “ respondents could not maintain a private action against petitioner for aiding and abetting another's use of a manipulative device or material misstatement where petitioner had not been the primary violator of the statutory prohibition and had not committed any manipulative or deceptive acts.”

The law is clear. Only obligated full disclosure is required. This may be the legal requirement, but is it smart from a public relations viewpoint? “A lot rides on how transparent a company is these days, from the confidence of investors who are betting on the company's future to the willingness of local communities to support the construction of new manufacturing facilities. Ultimately, it all comes down to the company's reputation. And reputation management falls squarely within the communicator's purview.”  (Holtz, pg 18) When the news broke in Central Ohio concerning the perceived cover-up of the NPO, many other NPOs were damaged by the fallout. The general public viewed large NPOs as being “less than honest” and a noticeable decline was posted in public support. Now, eight years later, it is widely believed that the NPO community is still suffering financially from the actions of this organization. Is there no one legally accountable for these actions? The answer is no.

While corporations may be protected by laws concerning full disclosure, “In a lot of companies,

information isn't shared simply because there is no requirement to share it,” (Holtz, pg 20)

there are changing attitudes concerning the issue. Much of these attitudes are being driven by the consumer. The public relations professional has the enormous task of understanding the law and providing a communication bridge between corporations, stakeholders, and publics. “As organizations recognize that being transparent is in their own best interest, communicators

should be at the forefront of the effort to become more transparent.” (Holtz, pg 20)

Whether a small NPO or a large international corporation, the law is clear concerning the responsibilities of full disclosure and “manipulative or deceptive acts.” Arguably, the law is wrong. When the protected speech of a corporation results in public distrust, economic downturns, and damage to innocent business, the intent behind full disclosure must be reexamined. Legal and right don’t necessarily go hand in hand.

References

289 US 385 Interstate Commerce Commission v. United States Campbell | OpenJurist. (n.d.). OpenJurist, the home of Legal Information, Lawyers and the Law  | OpenJurist. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from http://openjurist.org/289/us/385/interstate-commerce-commission-v-united-states-campbell

Amar, V. D. (n.d.). CENTRAL BANK OF DENVER, N. A. v. FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF DENVER, N. A., ET AL. :: Volume 511 :: 1994 :: Full Text :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from http://supreme.justia.com/us/511/164/case.html

Holtz, S. (2008). A clear case for transparency. Communication World, 25(6), 16-20. Retrieved November 12, 2011, from the Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

The Impact of Post-Modernism

While science and technology advance culture, art documents and reflects it. This is a standard philosophy of art and is widely accepted among practitioners. In the field of Communication, specifically theatre, the modern movement began in 1875 with the acting teacher Stanislavski, and playwrights such as Ibsen, Chekhov, and Strindberg. These playwrights specialized in a new form of theatre called Realism. Had it not been for Freud, and his introduction of psychology, the modern movement may have never happened. After 1875, for the first time, society was seeing art that truly reflected human beings. Realism became the new movement. Thirty years later, the post-modern movement would begin and it continues through present day.

New styles that represented a “departure from realism” were developed. These styles were still based on the concepts of psychology but reflected the subconscious more than the conscious. Surrealism, Existentialism, Futurism, Dadaism, Expressionism, and Naturalism all took the stage and played their role in reflecting the way we thought and functioned. Eventually, the eclectics emerged. These practitioners basically borrowed from many different styles and philosophies and arrived at their own conclusions.

Knowing this, it’s impossible to think that we are not living in a post-modern world. All of our best business practices are based on the foundations of modern theory and influenced by post-modern thinking. We are all eclectics. While we may subscribe to Realist, Expressionist, or Existentialist philosophies, we rarely consider ourselves to be pure practitioners of any one of these philosophies. As human beings, our thought process is much too complex to operate or subscribe to a single theory.

However, two problems arise when discussing modern vs. post-modern. In order to operate effectively in a post-modern world, one must first understand the foundations of modernism. In other words, if you are going to break the rules, you must first know what the rules are. There are many who see themselves as post-modernists without a real understanding of what they are doing. This sometimes results in unfortunate mistakes. I am a huge advocate of theory. I feel it should be a part of all curriculum's. The foundations are important.

The second problem that arises when discussing post-modernism in our time is reflection. It is impossible to truly analyze the impact that contemporary choices have on society. For example, we may propose theories concerning the impact that social media, technology, and politics have on early 21^st century society, but these theories won’t be truly realized until future generations have the proper distance for reflection.

So, by definition, we are living in a post-modern world. The impact of this is unclear. All we can do is work to understand its principles and operate accordingly.      

From Aristotle to Omidyar

"What I wanted to do was create an efficient market, where regular people could compete with big business ... it was a little bit of an experiment." Pierre Omidyar, eBay founder started his business after Labor Day weekend in 1995. His first posted item was a broken laser pointer that sold for $14.83. In 16 years, this “experiment” has grown into a company that boasts over 90 million users generating nearly $2,000 in sales per second. Not bad for a corporation that has existed entirely on the World Wide Web.

In The Cluetrain Manifesto, David Weinberger addresses the purpose of the Web in his chapter titled, The Longing. He states, “This fervid desire for the Web bespeaks a longing so intense that it can only be understood as spiritual. What is missing is the sound of the human voice.” The creators of eBay initially promoted a business that focused on selling items, but with the introduction of Meg Whitman, the original business model was thrown out. The focus was no longer selling. The focus became a marketplace for a world wide community. eBay was about people and their voice. Countless articles have been written about the success of eBay. A visit to its site provides a detailed source for history and mission. The message is clear; eBay is a forum for the human voice.

When reading Weinberger’s theory of the purpose of the Web, I was not surprised by the theory but I was surprised at the implication that this was a new idea. A multitude of voices sharing ideas and information is the foundation of communication. The Dithyrambs of Ancient Greece were performed by fifty men and played to audiences that numbered in the thousands. These presentations grew into yearly play festivals, attended by thousands and analyzed by Aristotle. They introduced the world to the works of Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. They defined communication through human voice. It’s not a surprise that Weinberger acknowledges the desire for human communication. The surprise is the new definition of “voice”. In The Cluetrain Manifesto, we see a changing world. Voice is no longer associated only with the spoken word. Voices can now exist in cyber space. It can be anonymous, secretive, expressive and imaginative. It can be powerful. It has no sound, but it can speak volumes. It’s electronic.

I joined the world of the internet in January 1997. I still remember the moment that I signed up for America Online. The rush to become a part of this new form of communication was so large; a busy signal was common when attempting to log on. In fact, the best time to log onto the Internet was after 11pm. It was so difficult to get online that users would maintain their connection throughout the day. I remember spending free time “surfing the net.” I wasn’t really looking for anything; I was just looking. Each click of the mouse provided a new message, idea, or product. The message boards were fascinating and the chat rooms were addictive. Yes, I was one of the millions who stayed up all night chatting with people. The idea that I could sit in my apartment and have a conversation with another human being on the other side of the world was amazing. It was immediate, long distance, and toll free.

Ten years ago, the authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto claimed the World Wide Web would be “the end of business as usual.” I have certainly experienced this in my line of work. I used to promote theatre with newspapers, television, radio and posters. I still use these tools, but now there are countless Internet sites that I also use to promote my work. Yes, the Internet was the end of business as usual. But there is no “end” to the Internet and what it has to offer a business. Using message boards and chat rooms have quickly become obsolete. Home pages are out of date. Everyone has a blog now, and most people under the age of thirty rarely check their email. All of the time invested by organizations in creating email lists, blast lists and web sites has now been eclipsed by the need to create Facebook and Twitter accounts. Just when we thought we had our website the way we liked it, we have found out we’re behind the curve in the social media craze. Now we are trying to catch up. Business as usual has changed once more.

If we have learned anything over the last 15 years, we know that in several years Facebook and Twitter will be replaced by something new. I mean, didn’t they replace MySpace and Pod Casts? What won’t change is the need for communication. Human beings will always need an outlet for their voice. Weinberger states, “Nothing is more intimately a part of who we are than our voice. It expresses what we think and feel…Our voice is our strongest, most direct expression of who we are.” Throughout history, humans have understood this concept. It worked for Aristotle and it continues to work for Pierre Omidyar. The message hasn’t changed. The venue has.

Things Oklahoma Taught Me

In the musical Oklahoma, the character of Andrew sings, “Territory folks should stick together, Territory folks should all be pals. Cowboys dance with farmer's daughters, Farmers dance with the ranchers' gals.” These lyrics point out the value of both farmer and rancher and the similarities they share. The song is a simple tune with a strong message about communication. I often wonder how much valuable time, creative thinking, and productive energy is wasted by Communication professionals fighting for their place at the table? We are territory folks. Our areas include marketing, public relations, media relations, social media, web design, advertising sales, speaker’s bureau, graphic design and many others. Unfortunately, many organizations will gather all of these individuals under the heading of Marketing with the implication that the Marketing Director sits at the head of the table and all others are his or her guests. Perhaps it’s a matter of semantics, but I would offer the following: Why not call the department Communication instead of Marketing? All of the above mentioned fields are equal parts in the discipline of Communication. Why do we elevate one area of the discipline and create an unhealthy hierarchy?

In the article Internal Branding: Exploring the employee’s perspective, King states, “People possess skills, knowledge and experiences and, therefore, are of significant economic value to organizations. As these skills, knowledge and experiences enhance productivity, they represent capital that is too valuable to be lost.” Unfortunately, a great deal of this capital can be lost if time is being wasted defending one’s value. A true benefit of Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC) would be the collective teamwork established through such a practice. If Communication professionals can openly embrace the value of their colleagues and their specialties and accept each other’s role in the organization, time could be focused more clearly on unified outcomes that could ultimately benefit employee, employer and public.

Obviously, there are challenges to this approach. Decades of practice in the old ways of thinking can obstruct a clear view of the positives. For example, social media is the new kid on the block and is currently finding its way and searching for a place at the table. Many view social media as a fad and not grounded in the solid principles of Communication theory and practice. Some have even gone as far as calling it “meaningless communication.” With these prevailing attitudes, how can the new experts in social media and Internet technology find equal footing in a non- integrated environment? King says, “organizations that implement an employee-oriented service culture or ‘ internal service ’ are able to positively impact consumer confidence as a result of employees treating customers with greater respect. The writer continues by stating, “Effective management, therefore, of employees, requires an internal market orientation (IMO), in the same way that managing the organization – customer relationship requires an external market orientation."

With a proper and effective IMO, a strong IMC can be created. If we can first understand the purpose behind our existence, we can then know why our place at the table is not only desired but necessary. “The most significant difference appears to be that many U.S. PR and advertising agencies consider IMC to be a mechanism around which they actually can organize.” Organization is important. If the IMC can organize dealing with the issue of who we are, why we are here and what do we need to accomplish, we can then learn how to communicate effectively and give all practitioners in our field their due credit.

If it works in Oklahoma, it can work for us.

The American Dream

During the course of Edward Albee’s play, The American Dream, we hear a horrific tale of two parents who so desperately wanted the perfect child; they were willing to destroy everything that made him imperfect. They cut off his feet and hands to keep him out of trouble. They cut out his tongue so he couldn’t speak and his brain so he couldn’t think. The story continues until the child, now an adult, appears on stage. He is gorgeous. He looks like James Dean, walks like a gentleman and speaks like an angel. He is “the American Dream.” He is pretty to look at but a mere shell on the inside. Once the dream was realized, the reality was hollow. Albee’s metaphor is quite clear.

Written in 1959, “the play is an examination of the American Scene, an attack on the substitution of artificial for real values in our society, a condemnation of complacency, cruelty, emasculation and vacuity; it is a stand against the fiction that everything in this slipping land of ours is peachy-keen,” according to Albee. It is not surprising that Mr. Albee would take such a dramatic stand in one of his plays. After all, his mentors were all products of the Federal Theatre Project and the Great Depression. He knew how theatre had been propagandized during the House Un-American Activity Committee hearings in the late 1930’s and he was now seeing it happen all over again in the 1950’s.

Selling a New Vision of America to the World, by Andrew Yarrow, provides fascinating insights into the PR shift from early to mid century America and the reasoning behind these shifts. He addresses propaganda by saying it “is generally defined as persuasive communication intended to appeal to a target audience’s latent beliefs or, with more difficulty, to change their beliefs and actions.” If we can accept the concept that art, which often includes writing and editorial, is a reflection of the times in which they operate, then it we may also assume that PR Theory also reflects these same periods. Vasquez and Taylor state, “Only seldom, however, do people ask if this perception of history is the only way to interpret the evolution of PR. If we look at propaganda as a persuasive tool, and consider its’ use throughout history, we understand the negative connotation of the word. Whether something is considered propaganda is in direct relation to which side of the story the listener is placed. 

The WPA during the 1930’s put many Americans back to work but it was widely viewed as a socialist program. With rising concerns over unionism, socialism, communism and the fear of revolution, a new story needed to be told. During World War II, a new sense of unity was sold to Americans with the ultimate promise of “The American Dream.” Soldiers came home from the war with visions of work, family, home and, white picket fence. Prosperity in America was a new story to sell to the world. “The paradigm was ostensibly an apolitical and upbeat message that could unite Americans, patching over the bitter social divisions not only of the 1930’s but of the preceding half century,” says Yarrow. If the country needed to “fight the spread” of communism, then a story of prosperity in a Capitalistic society was a much stronger sell than freedom. In fact, the two concepts could be combined. It is through freedom that you can gain prosperity.

The American Dream became an advertisers dream. Now the dream had to include new cars, new appliances, bigger homes and travel. Citizens of other countries started to believe that all Americans were rich, while in America, debts were rising and tensions over freedom were mounting. Edward Albee’s play debuts on the fringe of 1960. Soon, a new war will sweep the country; carrying with it new voices concerning freedom, lack of prosperity and the dismantling of the American Dream. The story would need to be changed once more.

I had a professor in graduate school who stated, “There is no such thing as historic fact. Fact is based on the perception of the story teller and the perception of the listener”. I guess one could make the same argument about the history of PR Theory. Several possible origins can be discussed, but we seem to arrive at the same conclusions.

One final note; the Federal Theatre Project, which I mentioned at the beginning of this article, was closed on June 30, 1939. Before it closed, a play titled The Cradle Will Rock was supposed to open on Broadway. The play was shut down by the government because of its’ pro-union and socialist themes. This is the only time in American history that a play is closed by the United States government. In defiance, the actors marched to another theatre and performed their roles from their seats in the audience. It is considered a defining moment in American theatre history. However, it is, at best, a footnote in American history.

The story didn’t fit well with the new vision that was being sold to the world.