These incidents, and growing media concentration, raise the question of whether the press should continue to be exempt from campaign-finance laws . Consider The New York Times Company and Mobil . Mobil takes out opinion ads on the Times's op-ed page, but it cannot endorse or oppose a federal candidate there or anywhere else because the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits direct corporate expenditures to favor or oppose such candidates. To endorse candidates, Mobil would need to set up a political action committee with its numerous bureaucratic requirements. The media exception fosters an inequality that gives Rupert Murdoch the right to publish an editorial endorsing a candidate while denying that right to Murdoch's corporate neighbor.
Evidence suggests that newspaper owners use endorsement decisions to secure access to politicians.
Two days later, Murdoch's New York Post endorsed Carter in the crucial New York primary. Soon afterward, the bank rejected a request Murdoch had made for a loan for his airline, but two days after the rejection, bank officials reversed that decision. Those with wealth can buy newspapers to secure greater access to elected officials or, putting access aside, to influence the outcome of elections. Congress could repeal the exception, making media corporations subject to the same rules as other corporations in spending their own resources to endorse candidates. Yet it is much more difficult to exchange subtle news bias for access, and obvious news bias doesn't fool voters.