The Middlemen and -women
Amy Goodman has a righteous piece up at Truthdig on the primal, perennial outrage that undergirds the corruption of American politics, namely, the funneling of hundreds of millions of dollars from political candidates to television and radio stations that operate under zero-cost public licenses. Most of the absurd sums that candidates raise goes to commercial broadcasters. So the inside story of American politics is: politicians are the middlemen and -women siphoning money from the pockets of the prosperous to the treasuries of broadcasters.
It's obvious, i. e. logical, that the remedy is public financing. It's also impolitic to make the point.
Short of the next millennium, then, if you want to imagine a simple reform that would change the democratic prospects at a stroke, you need look no further than Dick Durbin's proposed Fair Elections Now Act, which (in Ms. Goodman's words) "would both grant vouchers for broadcast ads and mandate a 20 percent discount beyond the lowest unit cost of ads near primary and election times."
Why not ask your senator where he or she stands on this simple, patently democratic measure?
Bet there won't be much air time devoted to this critical issue!!
April 12, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt the Senators will all be lined up to sponsor and pass this legislation, which will reduce their campaign donations, reduce the edge in fund raising they have over challengers, reduce their chances for lucrative jobs once they retire, and, of course, make it possible for the other party to win control of the White House.
Look, up in the sky! It's a bird! No, it's a plane! No, by golly, it's a pig!
Hoppy in Sacramento
April 12, 2007 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to do it. I'm on the road for a week, but when I get home I'll ask Senators Reed and Whitehouse what their positions are. When I get a response I'll post it.
I don't have bookmarks available. A link to the text of Sen. Durbin's bill would be appreciated. Thanks.
aMike
April 12, 2007 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
All 85 pages? Well, it's here.
April 12, 2007 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thankee kindly
I'm visiting relatives and there are times when 85 pages of senate-speak can come in handy. :-)
aMike
April 12, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another solution would be to charge these companies for use of the airwaves that belong to the people. What an income generator that would be.
April 13, 2007 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Mr. Gitlin.
There may be nothing that has aided the corruption of American politics and the installation of a criminal enterprise in control of the government more than the enormous sums involved in campaigning.
Best, Terry
April 13, 2007 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Durbin is my Senator, and I've been watching him for years now. He is, hands down, the most decent and honorable man in the Senate today - nobody even comes close to this guy.
With every issue, he always takes the most principled stand.
He might be the last and only reason that it's worth giving a damn about America.
April 13, 2007 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senators need not worry. This Supreme Court will rule the legislation, should it pass, unconstitutional - don't forget the Court's contorted reasoning on Buckley.
April 13, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another incumbent protection wrinkle...
Feingold began buying time on 2004 Green Bay Packer broadcasts (the only must-have spots) in 1999. by the time his republican opponent came through the September Primary, the Presidential Campaigns and their surrogates had bid comparable spots up to 8 times what Russ had paid.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Democratic Candidate for US Senate, Wisconsin 2012
April 14, 2007 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broadcasters are already required to make commercial time available to candidates in the weeks before an election at the lowest rate offered to anybody else.
Greatly expanding public financing won't change a thing. There will still be persons interested in throwing their weight behind a candidate and they will. Tossing in a bunch of public money just raises the nosie floor. It does not limit the influence of money, it simply means that the candidates will be needing it to raise themselves above the noise floor created by the publicly funded ads. Even if you prohibited broadcasters from accepting ads other than those that were publicly financed (good luck getting that past the first ammendment) there are still lots of other ways to spend the money...mailings, organizing, internet, print advertizing, and so forth.
If you want to even the playing field first of all bring back the fairness doctrine. Then make it possible to punish 527 groups, including their major financial backers, for false and misleading statements. Then impose a 'luxury tax'. Any campaign spending more than X on an election (value set based on the campaign and type of organization) must pay a major percentage of each extra dollar spent into a fund used to provide grants to lesser funded campaigns.
April 14, 2007 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink