We await the "reformers" next action. After all, a common reform complaint about monetary contributions was that, at the end of the day, it was the large contributor whose phone calls were being returned. Following this valuable endorsement, is there any chance that Barack Obama won't be returning Oprah's phone calls? What makes her influence more deserving of protection than, say, an unknown professional with money to spend?While Oprah is in some respect another celebrity who has endorsed a candidate and the marginal effect is somewhat questionable. However, Oprah is also a media outlet, far more effective at delivering content to her legions of fans. And so, the question that CCP is offering is not simply whether or not Oprah the idividual has a right to endorse a candidate and the "corruptive" influence that may come from that endorsement but what is the impact of the endorsement of Oprah the media empire.
As elections approach, newspapers and other media outlets feature editorials endorsing certain candidates for various offices. While clearly, under the freedom of press, these papers and other news outlets have a right to endorse who they choose. But if the reform community is so concerned with "corruption or the appearence of corruption," why then are there no cries to limit this practice, which while difficult to quantify in terms of money, at least some effort could be made based on the cost of a paid ad in the paper.
If money or its equivalent is corrupting of the political process for individuals and monied interests, why then are press outlets (almost of all of which are corporations) permitted to exercise their First Amendment right unfetterd by campaign regulations, but an individual cannot do the same under the same Constitutional Amendemnt?
In addition to answering CCP's question about one logical fallacy, how about answering the question of why one First Amendment right can be exercised without limit, but another cannot?