Documentarian Alex Gibney has released two new feature-length documentaries on HBO, titled "The Dark Money Game," which delve into the influence of undisclosed political funding in American politics. The films suggest that religious conservatives and corporate capitalists have undermined democracy since the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Critics argue that Gibney's work presents a biased narrative, focusing solely on conservative groups while ignoring similar practices among progressives. This critique highlights broader concerns about media representation and the role of money in shaping political discourse.
Gibney’s documentaries, inspired by Jane Mayer's book "Dark Money," explore allegations of corruption within the Republican Party, particularly in Ohio, where a pro-life bill was passed. According to Gibney, this legislation exemplifies how private interests can dominate public policy. However, critics point out that the same scrutiny is not applied to Democratic scandals, raising questions about fairness and objectivity in journalism. Furthermore, the second documentary examines the origins of the Citizens United case, emphasizing its impact on campaign finance laws.
The first film, "Ohio Confidential," investigates a bribery scheme involving Republican figures but extends its critique to include any legislation supported by so-called "dark money." For instance, the passage of a pro-life bill is portrayed as symptomatic of systemic corruption. Yet, no equivalent attention is given to similar activities by liberal organizations such as George Soros or Act Blue. This selective focus reinforces accusations that Gibney and HBO prioritize exposing conservative misconduct over providing balanced coverage.
In "Wealth of the Wicked," Gibney traces the genesis of the controversial Citizens United ruling, highlighting how it allowed certain groups to air advertisements critical of politicians like Hillary Clinton without restriction. Opponents of the decision argue that it disproportionately favors wealthy individuals and corporations, enabling them to drown out opposing voices through excessive spending. Nevertheless, statistical data indicate that only a small percentage of congressional races are highly competitive, suggesting that financial disparities do not always determine electoral outcomes.
Gibney employs former conservatives turned liberals, like Rob Schenck, to bolster his argument against big money in politics. Schenck asserts that aligning with billionaire donors could lead to positive social changes, challenging traditional conservative values. Despite these claims, detractors maintain that eliminating money from politics remains an impractical goal due to the integral role of advertising and media in modern campaigns. Moreover, left-leaning media outlets like PBS and NPR often convey messages aligned with progressive ideals, effectively silencing conservative perspectives under the guise of non-commercialism.
Beyond specific cases, the documentaries reflect deeper tensions surrounding the intersection of wealth and governance. While Gibney advocates for reducing monetary influence in elections, his approach overlooks comparable tactics employed by those on the political left. Consequently, audiences must consider whether current portrayals accurately represent the complexities of America's political landscape or merely perpetuate partisan agendas.