I complete agree with Ross Mayfield : Advertising is not Democratic.

This past weekend whilst the technology blogosphere was drooling over the iPhone, a post by one of Google's advertising account planner in the health category created the effect of rubbernecking in front of a car crash. And I mean it when I say it was ugly. Ugly in a "We Do Evil* As Long As There Is Cash Involved" kind of ugly.

In Does Negative Press Make You Sicko?, Lauren Turner wrote :

The healthcare industry is no stranger to negative press. A drug may be a blockbuster one day and tolled as a public health concern the next.

...

Many of our clients face these issues; companies come to us hoping we can help them better manage their reputations through “Get the Facts” or issue management campaigns.

...

We can place text ads, video ads, and rich media ads in paid search results or in relevant websites within our ever-expanding content network. Whatever the problem, Google can act as a platform for educating the public and promoting your message. We help you connect your company’s assets while helping users find the information they seek.

After the deductible hit the fan, the woman came back again for more foot-in-mouth pronouncements like this one :

Whether the healthcare industry wants to rebut charges in Mr. Moore's movie, or whether Mr. Moore wants to challenge the healthcare industry, advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue.

Not ironically this comes on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that allows corporate-sponsored issues advertising to air until the very last days of an election because, the Justices argued, not doing so would be an infringement on the corporation's right to free speech :

The case involved commercials that the Wisconsin Right to Life was prevented from broadcasting. They urged voters to write the state's two senators, Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and ask them not to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees.

The key point for the majority: the commercials didn't cast the candidates in a positive or negative light. Nor did they ask voters to vote for or against them. Had the ads done so, the decision may have been decided against them.

The ads could have been run had they been paid for out of the group's political action committee, which are subject to federal campaign-finance limits. Sponsors of such ads have contended they are exempt from certain limits on contributions in federal elections.

The Bush administration urged the court to ban the ads, arguing that they were intended to influence the elections, not lobby the senators.

And let's be clear, the lawsuit gives corporations and not individuals the right to freedom of speech. Roberts explicitly argues the case for 501c(4) and PACs.

To me, this is outrageous and it confirms all what many feminist bloggers had outlined in our opposition to John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

As Ross explains, it is anti-democratic to use the ability to buy advertising as synonymous to the First Amendment because in this case, only the people with the money and access to big media will be able to have freedom to publish and say whatever they want and can get away with.

To say that if you have access to cash you will have access to democracy is absolutely bone-chilling. And here you have it not just form Google, but from the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

----
*Google's motto is "Do No Evil"