Originally Posted by patteeu
You're jumping all over the place. Your initial claim was that the difference was that corporate advocacy requires someone with elite levels of money while media advocacy can be done by anyone. That's simply not true. There is no such difference.
Obviously there are other differences, but those aren't related to your initial objection. The biggest one is the one I pointed out already. In one case your ox is gored and in the other it isn't.
There are huge differences. And you're still not defending Citizens United's ability to benefit the masses, which it clearly doesn't. You're making the same arguments that gun advocates make: other things are just as bad!
The media is driven by a ton of factors that largely dilute its ability to be a straight advocacy machine. Its reliance on an audience, its multi-faceted purposes, the fact that it's a multi-voiced machine rather than a laser-focused point of attack machine. And the biggest media outlets have been robbed of much of their moxie by the Internet's grassroots ability.
The 1% money machine, however, is beholden to nobody, does not have the air of credibility it must sustain that the media largely does, and can be single-minded in ways virtually no media outlet can dream of being.