Marketplace is produced and distributed from the APM Frank Stanton Studios in Los Angeles, where the sign says; "FRANK STANTON STUDIOS: DEDICATED TO REPSONSIBLE JOURNALISM AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT."

Given that the central principle for the majority decision in Citizens United v. FEC was an intended vindication for the First Amendment over competing interests, Marketplace's concerted attacks on the decision seems very, very odd.

Marketplace has its own finding sources. 501(c)(3) and/or 501(c)(4) organizations:

The Kenanda Fund;
The Kresge Foundation;
The Starr Foundation;
The Henry Luce Foundation;
The Ford Foundation;
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Daily, through the use of the national public radio system, Marketplace is commenting on political affairs. Is that work being done through the exploitation of "dark money" (a phrase that has been put into frequent use by Marketplace correspondents)? What do we really know, about the political sympathies and affiliations of those foundations? And about their funding sources? Is it a matter of secrecy and/or privacy when Marketplace representatives get together with foundation grant-officers?

No wonder public radio audiences are so poorly informed, and so set in their prejudices about the recent history of campaign finance reform.

When liberal media hosts like Kai Ryssdal, partnered with that mainstay of liberal PBS ideology (Frontline), go off on "Citizens United," and respected Supreme Court advocates like James Bopp are reduced to caricatures as was the case in this segment.

When all that you do, is read the New York Times, and the New Yorker, and subsist in the bubble of NPR and PBS, it is a bit more understandable that you'd be a person who would have a decidedly partisan view.

If anybody wants to correct me on the last time that The Takeaway devoted any significant broadcast time to someone who could convincingly articulate the pro-freedom, pro-First Amendment, pro-information side of the campaign finance debate, be my guest. Let us know. Not merely the rare occasion in which The Takeaway tries to balance equal time; there might actually have been a few of those. But rather, the flip side of what was done today, and what is regularly done on public radio, which is to scold the audience on the nascent evils of federal case under Citizens United and its progeny.

I can't think of anything like the flip side of this segment. The default position of The Takeaway, WNYC, NPR and PBS is that campaign spending is inherently evil; that Citizens United was an inexplicable or even corrupt decision; and that there can be no other side to the story apart from naked political power.

It is all an insult to the intelligence of real scholars of the U.S. Constitution. The issue can be fought, if persons have honest and informed legal opinions. But of course, The Takeaway isn't offering any debates. The Takeaway -- and this segment is a good example -- is promoting and re-broadcasting the hit pieces done by Frontline, on just one side.

My idea for an interesting look into the secretive world of political-media funding, would be to check into the politics of the 501(c)(3) or (c)(4) organizations that fund public broadcasting. Are there messages that are being coordinated, between Frontline on PBS, and The Takeaway on NPR? Are the producers of public radio newstalk programming and PBS news themselves representative of the larger body politic? Is there political balance in their productions? Can John Hockenberry be a fair news reporter on a Frontline special, when he himself might be a Frontline producer? Is Kai Ryssdal a news reporter, or is he a viewpoint commentarian? If he is a news reporter, is his reporting conforming to standards of fairness and balance?