In the podcast, the birth of the corporate free speech movement is explored, focusing on Mobil Oil's marketing approach in the 1970s. It discusses the role of corporations in connecting business interests with culture, the concept of corporate free speech, the Supreme Court ruling on electioneering communication, and the rejection of a controversial gas shortage advertisement.
34:55
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Corporate philanthropy allows companies to project a comprehensive image and align business interests with cultural and educational initiatives.
Mobil Oil's campaign for expanded corporate free speech rights helped shape public discourse and paved the way for increased corporate political influence.
Deep dives
Companies' Philanthropic Initiatives: Beyond Core Business
Companies, including oil companies like Chevron and ConocoPhillips, invest significant money in initiatives unrelated to their core business. These initiatives often include sponsoring sports events, funding education programs, and supporting women in STEM fields. The objective is not solely to be seen as a good corporate citizen, but rather to project a comprehensive image encompassing ideas, policies, morals, ethics, reputation, and personality. Through philanthropy, companies can align their business interests with cultural, educational, and philanthropic areas, demonstrating a bottom line payout for their efforts.
Herb Schmertz: Pioneering Corporate Philanthropy
Herb Schmertz, a former labor lawyer and VP of Public Affairs for Mobil Oil, played a key role in shaping corporate philanthropy. He believed in utilizing issue advertising or 'affinity of purpose marketing' to promote ideas and advocate for corporate interests beyond selling products. Mobil sponsored art exhibitions, launched literary prizes, and even hired writers to contribute opinion pieces in major newspapers like The New York Times. Schmertz viewed these tactics as a way to humanize Mobil, enhance its reputation, and influence public opinion.
Mobile's Political Influence and Efforts for Corporate Free Speech
Mobile Oil's campaign to protect its issue advertisements faced resistance from television networks that deemed such ads as controversial and potentially propagandistic. Schmertz and Mobil CEO Raleigh Warner argued that networks' restrictions on issue advertising limited the public's access to crucial information, especially during the energy crisis of the 1970s. Mobil's efforts also involved supporting a case, First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, which helped establish corporate First Amendment rights and paved the way for increased corporate political influence.
The Impact of Citizens United and Mobile's Role
The Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission further solidified corporations' rights to free speech, setting the stage for the increased influence of corporate spending in politics. Mobile Oil's active role in pushing for expanded corporate free speech rights, along with its issue advertising techniques, helped shape public discourse and paved the way for a system that allows corporations to have a louder voice in the political arena. The case contributed to debates surrounding corporate personhood and the implications for climate action and democracy.
In the 1970s, Mobil Oil had invented the advertorial and was aggressively pursuing an entirely new type of marketing, branding the company as a person with a unique personality and opinions that deserved to be heard. When public backlash threatened to undermine their approach, they launched a campaign that would change the course of U.S. history. Transcript