I hate to criticize the liberal line twice in two days, but I have a few concerns about Choose the Blue, which seems to be growing quickly in popularity among my fellow libs.
If you haven’t heard about it, the site sounds like a decent idea. Here’s how the site’s creators explain what the project is all about:
“We wanted to have our voices heard, and felt that one way of doing that was to direct our spending towards companies who support candidates and issues in which we believe. Many of our friends thought this a great idea and we started building ChooseTheBlue.com. Our research has highlighted to us the stunning amount of money that corporations donated this election cycle. It has been fascinating to trace donations and to learn what products belong to which companies. Our goal is to provide people with information about political donations so they can make informed choices about where to shop. We believe that we can make a difference by adjusting our spending.”
On its face, I think this general approach has merit. I support the idea of “voting” with one’s wallet and I do so myself by avoiding outlets like Wal-Mart. As word has spread, several bloggers have touted Choose the Blue (Eric Alterman did so yesterday, but there have been many others) as a way for Dems to use commerce to influence corporate political donations. I don’t know if it’ll work, but it’s a start. So far, so good.
My concerns, however, have to do with Choose the Blue’s methodology. Visitors to the site find categories of industries, which ultimately tell readers how various companies donated to Dems and Republicans during the most recent election cycle. According to the site’s organizers, the information was culled from objective sources.
All numbers used on this site pertain to the 2003-2004 election cycle and were taken from information in the public domain, including data from the Federal Election Commission records (FEC.gov) and the Center for Responsible Politics.
But that’s where the trouble starts. Choose the Blue’s samples fail to offer context or any kind of details that might help visitors in making informed decisions.
The site lists the Pittsburgh Steelers football team, for example, as being 58% Blue and 42% Red. Does this mean the Steelers have a political action committee? Does this reflect the donations from the teams’ owners? Players? Readers have no idea because Choose the Blue doesn’t tell us.
The Las Vegas Sun newspaper is listed as 91% Blue and 9% Red. Is this referring to donations from the papers’ owners, editors, or staff? Or some combination therein? Again, we don’t know.
Under car dealers, there’s a listing for “Toyota,” which is listed as 74% Red. But under car makers, there’s a listing for “Toyota,” which is identified as 74% Blue. What does this tell us about Toyota’s ideology and political contributions? I haven’t the foggiest idea.
There are also some very odd examples included among the samples. In the “entertainment” section, the TV show “Golden Girls” is listed as a 100% Blue program. I’m glad, but didn’t that show go off the air 12 years ago? Is the point that Dems should watch the show in syndication?
Also troubling is how the site is updated. Over the weekend, when I first learned of this site, I noticed that The Weekly Standard, a conservative political magazine, and the Fox News Channel, a conservative cable network, were both listed as giving more money to Dems than Republicans. This immediately made no sense to me, considering what we know about these news outlets. Was the site only considering donations from the parent corporation or were contributions from editors and staff included? Again, no clue.
Today, however, both The Weekly Standard and Fox News are listed as 57% Red, 43% Blue. This still doesn’t make sense, but it’s at least closer to what we know in reality. What prompted the change from Blue to Red over the last few days? We don’t know; the site doesn’t tell us.
The point of Choose the Blue seems like an idea worth pursuing, but I’m afraid, at this point, the site’s utility is highly limited and its credibility is flawed. I know many trustworthy blogs are recommending Choose the Blue, but for now I’m sticking with “caveat emptor.”