Reform, TV, free speech and billionaires.
Greetings again. Earlier in the week I said I'd address some of the issues raised in the comments people have posted. So, here are a few thoughts back at you about free TV time, spending limits, and the billionaire candidate problem.
I've always thought of free TV time for candidates as a form of public financing, that is, the delivery of a public good to take the place of what a candidate would otherwise have to pay for with private contributions. People often think of TV as the expense that drives the cost of political campaigns sky high and necessitates even greater reliance on big dollar private campaign contributions. But let me be a just a little but bit contrarian here. The larger culprit in the explosion of campaign costs is the Supreme Court's refusal to rein in unlimited campaign spending, combined with the deep pockets of the special interests that benefit from government policy decisions. The cost of running for office is rising in rapidly for districts in which TV time is not a factor as well as those where it is. And the escalation of campaign costs is rising faster that the cost of reaching people with a 30 second spot. It's better to think of it in terms of an arms race. Each side wants to buy enough weapons to beat its enemies. The cost of any particular weapons system is secondary to the need to buy enough to win. Right now, broadcast TV time is the most cost effective way to reach people, but over the coming years that will be less and less true, and we will still have an escalating campaign arms race. Having said that, mandating the broadcast networks to give back some of their prime time mother lode to become a critical piece of a comprehensive public financing system is a good idea and a fair one. The power of the broadcast industry lobby is the largest obstacle to making this real, but the growing outcry for media reform may change the odds in this fight.
Another post raised the issue of free speech and campaign finance reform. Public financing laws like the one just passed in Connecticut have fared well in the courts because they expand speech more than they restrict it. Under the private contribution system, speech is rationed - and your ration coupons are essentially the number of greenbacks you have in your wallet. This fall I asked James Bopp, the country's leading litigator against campaign finance reform, what happens to the "free" speech rights of citizens without money in an election system built on unlimited private campaign contributions. His reply was, essentially, "well, that's the argument for public financing". I couldn't agree more.
In just a few months, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to revisit its ruling against campaign spending limits. The case, Landell v. Sorrell, has its origins in Vermont's Clean Elections law, passed in 1997. Under the Clean laws passed in elsewhere, publicly financed candidates receive public matching funds when a privately financed candidate spends more money the publicly financed candidate gets - this preserves a level playing field and makes the public financing option more viable for candidates facing well financed opponents. The Vermont system takes a different approach. It establishes mandatory spending limits, making the matching funds unnecessary, because the privately financed candidates are forbidden from spending more than the Clean candidates. While this approach was upheld in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, it conflicts with other court rulings leading to the SCOTUS decision to take the case. You can visit the National Voting Rights Institute at http://nvri.org to learn more about the case.
If the Supremes take this opportunity to carve out circumstances under which campaign spending limits can be legal, it would open the door to making Bloomberg scale spending illegal and make possible public financing laws that incorporate mandatory spending limits. If not, the basic model public financing laws can still address this issue by the provision of one-for-one public matching dollars to supplement the original grants given to publicly-financed candidates. In the existing Clean systems there is a cap put on the match, so it is important to note that we haven't had a President Forbes or Perot, a Senator Huffington or Checchi. It took lots of money to beat them, but not explicitly equal funding.
I'll come back tomorrow and address some more of the issues raised in past comments.
No matter how you pay for it, TV is more the problem than the solution.
Some people just don't look good on TV. The 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debates were "won" by Nixon according to radio listeners, Kennedy by TV viewers. Same guys, same material.
Think of great leaders thoughout history who would never have been elected if they had to go on TV.
You could start with Abraham Lincoln.
December 3, 2005 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
A new though just occurred to me: why is it legal to "donate" funds to any candidate? No one does so without expecting something in return, either favorable votes or influence, and that makes such donations bribes. So, wouldn't a prohibition against campaign donations solve a lot of problems? Of course people could still independently campaign for whomever they wished, but the candidate couldn't coordinate the campaigning. I do see problems with this, but are the problems more or less severe than we have today?
December 3, 2005 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least in Connecticut campaign finance reform is a work in progress. I agree with Lowell Weicker's position that in it's current form the new law will inhibit minor party's efforts to get public money. For representative it takes $5,000, senator $10,000 (I think) and governor $250,000 in fees to qualify for public funds. But an even bigger problem is the candidates need petitions signed by 20% of the electorate (or roughly 200,000 people in the case of Connecticut) to get on the ballot. Weicker and/or the ACLU is planning to challenge the newly passed Connecticut law based on these facts saying it further consolidates the power of the 2 major parties of who gets on ballots. I disagree that the whole law should be overturned for these reasons, but they do need to be addressed. The intent of the law is to make it easier for people to get on the ballot and not all of the hurdles have been removed...
December 3, 2005 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
On a side note, Terry Gross interviewed Jimmy Carter right before the 2004 election on NPR's "Fresh Air." I found it rather revealing that Carter, whose Carter Center has supervised elections in over 50 third world countries, said his organisation could not supervise the American Election (if we were to ask) because we didn't meet their Four Basic Standards:
1. All qualified candidates must have free access to the media. Period. In America, candidates must raise $100 million minimum to even be considered. And Nader would have to be included.
2. All central election committees must be non partisan. We have 50 that do not qualify. In Florida, the notoriously partisan Katherine Harris ran for congress and was easily elected. Her replacement, the present Secretary of State, didn't even run. He was APPOINTED by Jeb Bush.
3. All voters must vote the same way. In America, some vote on touch screens, some vote in optical scan cards, some probably still use "chad-o-matics." And, of course, some are not "allowed" to vote at all.
4. A physical recount for close elections is mandatory. The technology is available. In fact, most of it was invented in America! It is OK to use touch screen machines - only Carter elections require that they produce a paper ballot which the voter visually checks and then deposits in the "recount box."
Interesting food for thought about the country that claims to want to export freedom and democracy to the third world.
December 3, 2005 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is much of an argument against TV. The idea that you have to be successful in the dominant means of communication of your day is perennial. I've not checked it, but I would assume that everyone from the invention through to Kennedy had a pleasant voice to listen to. And before that the winners had to be even better on the stump or in small rooms of power players, and had to know how to control print media.
One would have to argue that TV necessarily inhibits political discourse in a way that other media do not to go anywhere with this. I think you could, but that's a larger social issue, not a political one.
December 3, 2005 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who favor public funding of campaigns, and campaign finance restrictions generally, always act as though the only hurdle they must clear is demonstrating that some possible public funding regime would be fair and improve things over the status quo.
I dissent from that assumption.
The problem with any Congressional effort to establish rules for publically funded campaigns is that the senators and representatives crafting the rules have an enormous conflict of interest: in short they'll always want to craft the rules to favor incumbents.
Even in the unlikely event that a fair system is established to begin with over time Congresses will inevitably tweak and amend it to enhance incumbent advantages, probably in relatively covert and complicated ways that make it unlikely to be reported on adequately by the press or understood by enough members of the public to oppose them.
So let's stipulate that it's a bad thing when rich people can afford more speech than poor people, and that it's a bad thing when Congress fixes the rules of elections to favor incumbents.
Which is the bigger problem?
In my view a Congress that fixes the rules of elections to protect incumbents is by far a bigger affront to fairness and a greater threat to our system of representative democracy.
,
December 3, 2005 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point well taken, Marcel. TV is here to stay. And, for better or worse, future presidents will HAVE TO LOOK GOOD ON TV.
The first amendment issues will eliminate any legislated cap to spending. Public funding can never match private - - John Kerry declined public financing for just that reason in 04. And he raised as much as did Bush.
You could force the TV stations to offer free air time to candidates, however, I think that "the public interest" is no longer a part of TV, even though they use the public's air waves. TV stations are now bought and sold like real estate. Reed Hundt, if you read this, feel free to comment as to how we got into this situation.
Perhaps the internet will take over for TV now that it has become consolidated and has given up real news for Britney Spears. I, for one, have given up TV.
December 3, 2005 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you decide which untried candidate gets public financing. Do only Democrats or Republicans get financing?
December 3, 2005 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nick-
I have tried repeatedly to get Reed Hundt to explain the reasoning behind the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and all the attendant rules for broadcasters in a campaign season, to no avail. IMHO, this was the single biggest blow to an informed electorate. Maybe I have missed his response, in which case I would greatly appreciate a link to it.
I believe the biggest cost other than electronic media (and the greatest waste and detriment) in the political election system are the consultants, the focus group researchers, and pollsters. "Business" hates uncertainty: for political parties, however, "electability" should not be confused as a commodity. The idea that a politician should "shape" a message based on what a focus group "wants" to hear should be left to the realm of commercial products, not politics.
Candidates should be required to tell the truth about their positions, back it up by a voting record, and drop the "code words". The only way this can happen is to have an informed electorate, not one who is "marketed" a persona. Americans have been lied to by the two party system long enough. Starting with middle school, "civics" class should be less about memorizing the dates of Teapot Dome and more about the impact of good government on our daily life.
Now, before the next reader calls me out as a pollyanna, points out that "this is the system that we have and therefore have to deal with", let me respond by saying that this is the system we have allowed to provide us with empty suits and steal our votes. Given the frequency of election cycles and the amount of work that is usually done in any one of them by the elected, a "potted plant" strategy could do no more harm. Even if a "potted plant" was on the ballot and did get elected, the chance of say, starting a pre-emptive war or overturning the membership of the SCOTUS would be minimal. It might take several full state and national cycles, but those wishing to work in public service would get the message. As long as the apologists for this bogus system of candidate recruitment are given the creedence by the voters to continue to run it, it will continue to function as well as Brownie's FEMA.
So, once again I will call out to Reed Hundt. If you have posted it before, I apologize for missing it. If you haven't, then please contribute something of your expertise here (and leave the Redskins analysis to the myriad shows on Sunday morning ;<) ).
You presided over the dismantling of the rules: did it just seem like a good idea at the time? Are we suffering now from the law of unintended consequences? Dish!
December 4, 2005 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
And while you're at it, Mr Hundt, could you also explain what ever happened to "the public interest" that broadcasters were supposed to serve?
Or why ClearChannel's ownership of 1500 stations (all Hannity, all the time) is a good idea for America.
December 4, 2005 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
TV is more the problem than the solution.
I say: nonsense! Does the invention of the printing press bother you too? I'm with Marcel. What's bothering you is the nature of politics. The situation was actually much much worse with stump speeches from the local trading post.
You could start with Abraham Lincoln.
OK, I call nonsense again. Do you believe all the myths that are taught in grade school, i.e., George Washington chopped down a cherry tree?
Here's Lincoln performing ala TV sans TV:
from
A Lincoln Scholar, Pulled Out of a Hat
By CHRIS HEDGES (NYT) 922 words
Published: March 3, 2005
December 4, 2005 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
While money itself is not speech, free speech is very difficult without money, and there are real dangers with letting the government interfere with how people spend their money when trying to speak. For instance, a ban on the possession or sale of printing presses could shut down newspapers in the same manner as licensing journalists. Prohibiting a passionate advocate of abortion rights from purchasing a billboard isn't really any different from prohibiting the advocate from speaking on the issue.
For this reason, courts have correctly struck down laws limiting expenditures. Telling a citizen that he or she cannot purchase a television advertisement saying "vote for me" isn't really legally distinguishable from telling that citizen that he cannot say "vote for me", or telling him that he cannot purchase a television advertisement saying "the Iraq war is bad". Courts can't decide these sorts of issues without giving the government the go ahead to regulate the expression of ideas in ways that are inconsistent with the First Amendment.
It frustrates me sometimes that huge corporations or wealthy individuals are able to buy themselves positions in the public debate. Nonetheless, there is no principled basis for giving the government the power to regulate how much people can spend on speech.
Buckley v. Valeo got it right-- limitations on contributions, fine; limitations on expenditures, unconstitutional.
December 4, 2005 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink