Page 57 - MASTER COPY LEADERS BOOK 9editedJKK (24)_Neat
P. 57
Leaders in Legal Business
— along with a strong social and digital media presence on the issue. It was music to their ears, and the highest-
profile bully pulpit for them, when McCutcheon v. FEC reached the Supreme Court.
McCutcheon was then depicted as a Koch-aligned operative seeking to infuse even more corporate money
into political coffers. Protesters brought a rat with his name painted on it to the Capitol. They carried signs that
turned the “M” in his name into the McDonald’s Golden Arches.
It’s understandable that McCutcheon’s side failed to fully appreciate this minefield ahead, as the
substantive case seemed innocuous by Citizens United standards. Yet McCutcheon was ultimately fortunate with
his choice of his legal team, comprised of solo practitioners, small firms, and government alumni. They may not
have been prognosticators from the get-go (which would have been ideal), but they certainly knew what had to
be done now.
Now they knew it was no longer just about briefs and scholarly arguments, but that the character of Shaun
McCutcheon was, perforce, the central issue. McCutcheon was in danger of becoming yet another unsavory
symbol in the ongoing theater of corporate rapacity.
McCutcheon v. FEC thus hinged on McCutcheon’s ability to control his own narrative. “I am not a
corporate mouthpiece” wasn’t going to cut it as the main theme of that narrative, but “I defend American freedom”
would, and not just as an influencer of public opinion. It’s also about the jury pool in some cases. In this case, it
was about encouraging a Supreme Court that was likely already on McCutcheon’s side to trust its own
inclinations.
At the very moment when the anti-McCutcheon forces seemed insurmountable, the McCutcheon team
made a fateful move: They stopping taking press calls and started making them. They set up interviews and
meetings with key media (even those that had been adversarial to date) until they were finally able to focus on
the facts of the case – which, lo and behold, were actually inoffensive to many liberals and activists. The tide
turned: McCutcheon was even seen by some as inhospitable to corporations, as his whole point was to empower
individuals.
Importantly, the team had practiced strict message discipline. Media training was key in order for them
to stay on point and to generate acceptance of the spokespersons, especially McCutcheon himself, at a personal
level.
.
Equally important, the McCutcheon team went to work on the digital front, designing and launching an
informational website. New searchable content proliferated across multiple online media. When the Huffington
Post ran a positive piece, it was posted on that publication’s blog, readily accessible to its 4.6 million Facebook
fans and 4.9 million Twitter followers. As a result, it was McCutcheon’s message that began to dominate search
engine results.
On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC that struck down the
aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates,
parties, and political action committees combined. The fact that it was a split decision only underscores the
importance of McCutcheon’s concomitant effort to win the hearts and minds of a diverse constituency. Absent
that effort, it might have gone 5-4 the other way.
The McCutcheon litigation communications strategy didn’t end when the case was won. In the ensuing
weeks and months, McCutcheon continued to discuss the positive impacts of the case and repair the damage done
to his personal reputation during the early days of media scrutiny. This need to continue communicating after it’s
all over, which was well-recognized by McCutcheon and his lawyers, is one of the important lessons here for
other high-profile litigants, especially those who want people to still buy their automobiles or to bank in their
branch offices in the aftermath.
Crystal Ball
Ideally, a legal team should arm itself with enough online media analysis data to predict how their case
will fare in the Court of Public Opinion. Informed clairvoyance is no less important in situations where there is
not as much apparent potential for controversy as in the McCutcheon example — although, in the current
50
— along with a strong social and digital media presence on the issue. It was music to their ears, and the highest-
profile bully pulpit for them, when McCutcheon v. FEC reached the Supreme Court.
McCutcheon was then depicted as a Koch-aligned operative seeking to infuse even more corporate money
into political coffers. Protesters brought a rat with his name painted on it to the Capitol. They carried signs that
turned the “M” in his name into the McDonald’s Golden Arches.
It’s understandable that McCutcheon’s side failed to fully appreciate this minefield ahead, as the
substantive case seemed innocuous by Citizens United standards. Yet McCutcheon was ultimately fortunate with
his choice of his legal team, comprised of solo practitioners, small firms, and government alumni. They may not
have been prognosticators from the get-go (which would have been ideal), but they certainly knew what had to
be done now.
Now they knew it was no longer just about briefs and scholarly arguments, but that the character of Shaun
McCutcheon was, perforce, the central issue. McCutcheon was in danger of becoming yet another unsavory
symbol in the ongoing theater of corporate rapacity.
McCutcheon v. FEC thus hinged on McCutcheon’s ability to control his own narrative. “I am not a
corporate mouthpiece” wasn’t going to cut it as the main theme of that narrative, but “I defend American freedom”
would, and not just as an influencer of public opinion. It’s also about the jury pool in some cases. In this case, it
was about encouraging a Supreme Court that was likely already on McCutcheon’s side to trust its own
inclinations.
At the very moment when the anti-McCutcheon forces seemed insurmountable, the McCutcheon team
made a fateful move: They stopping taking press calls and started making them. They set up interviews and
meetings with key media (even those that had been adversarial to date) until they were finally able to focus on
the facts of the case – which, lo and behold, were actually inoffensive to many liberals and activists. The tide
turned: McCutcheon was even seen by some as inhospitable to corporations, as his whole point was to empower
individuals.
Importantly, the team had practiced strict message discipline. Media training was key in order for them
to stay on point and to generate acceptance of the spokespersons, especially McCutcheon himself, at a personal
level.
.
Equally important, the McCutcheon team went to work on the digital front, designing and launching an
informational website. New searchable content proliferated across multiple online media. When the Huffington
Post ran a positive piece, it was posted on that publication’s blog, readily accessible to its 4.6 million Facebook
fans and 4.9 million Twitter followers. As a result, it was McCutcheon’s message that began to dominate search
engine results.
On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC that struck down the
aggregate limits on the amount an individual may contribute during a two-year period to all federal candidates,
parties, and political action committees combined. The fact that it was a split decision only underscores the
importance of McCutcheon’s concomitant effort to win the hearts and minds of a diverse constituency. Absent
that effort, it might have gone 5-4 the other way.
The McCutcheon litigation communications strategy didn’t end when the case was won. In the ensuing
weeks and months, McCutcheon continued to discuss the positive impacts of the case and repair the damage done
to his personal reputation during the early days of media scrutiny. This need to continue communicating after it’s
all over, which was well-recognized by McCutcheon and his lawyers, is one of the important lessons here for
other high-profile litigants, especially those who want people to still buy their automobiles or to bank in their
branch offices in the aftermath.
Crystal Ball
Ideally, a legal team should arm itself with enough online media analysis data to predict how their case
will fare in the Court of Public Opinion. Informed clairvoyance is no less important in situations where there is
not as much apparent potential for controversy as in the McCutcheon example — although, in the current
50
