Opening up the media: Cutting campaign costs and allowing more voices to be heard

Opening up the media: Cutting campaign costs and allowing more voices to be heard

Most voters believe we should limit the amount of money spent on campaigns. Unfortunately, in America we cannot simply mandate such limits (as is done in most democratic countries), due to a 1976 Supreme Court decision that equates campaign expenditures with "free" speech.

Current efforts to limit the power of moneyed-interests are aimed at implementing a system of voluntary public financing of campaigns (e.g. Proposition 89). But voluntary public financing will not stop PAC's, Lobbyist, and 527 groups from spending as much as they like on media time to influence the vote and cull favors in Washington and Sacramento.

To break this chain of control over our elections we must provide all ballot qualified candidates with equal access to the most important means of disseminating their message - the media.

The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in Stockholm reports that 63 percent of democracies provided free access to the media, thus eliminating one of the major reasons for raising money. These counties realize that political equality requires building barriers between money and the ballot box and that the best way for citizens to make informed choices is to ensure that all points of view are heard.

Among the chorus of voices calling for free access by qualified candidates to the public airways is world renowned investor Warren Buffet.

As Buffet has stated, "It's time we added the ability for all qualified candidates to be heard as part of their right to free speech."

Media Spending is out of Control

"Today's political campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters," said former Senator Bill Bradley during the 2000 presidential campaign. "They simply transfer money from contributors to television stations."

Many others politicians are saying the same thing, especially after they retire. When Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey decided not to seek reelection in 2000 he told the press his decision was based on "the searing reality that I would have had to spend half of every day between now and the next election fund-raising." To run an effective media campaign, Lautenberg added, he would have had to ask thousands of people for help and raise an average of $25,000 to $30,000 every day he was in office.

Recent studies have show that broadcast media spending is the single largest component of campaign budgets, representing about 27 percent of the total expenses in House races, 40 to 45 percent in Senate races, and at least 50 percent in presidential races.

To make matters worse, the Telecommunications act of 1996, and deregulation by the FCC has lead to the consolidation of the broadcast and newspaper markets. From 1980 to 2000 the number of owners of major media dropped from 50 to just 6. This has led to greater censorship of third party candidates, and increased cost of political advertising (and consequently larger expenditures by winning candidates).

Overall congressional candidates spent almost $4 billion campaigning in 2004, with 40% of these funds ($1.6 billion) going for TV ads. This vast expenditure on media advertising stands in stark contract to much of the rest of the world where access to the media is seen as a guaranteed right for all qualified candidates.

Leadership skills aside, the record overwhelmingly shows that the candidate who wins the battle of the airwaves usually wins the wars at the polls. The only way to assure airwave supremacy is to outspend - and therefore out raise - your opponent.

Campaign advertising has become such a big part of elections in America that in even-numbered years, political advertising accounts for 15% of all ads sold on broadcast television, behind only automobiles and retail stores (they even out-spend all fast food chains and beer companies).

No wonder we see such an increase in the number of actors running for office. If you are going to spend all that money on advertising, you better have a candidate who knows how to work the camera.

*****

Forrest to join Bowen and McPherson at Elections Debate

Dr. Forrest Hill is schedule to debate Debra Bowen (D) and Bruce McPherson (R) at a Town Hall meeting in San Diego on the issue of election integrity. The meeting is scheduled to be covered by local TV and news outlets.

If you live in Southern California, please come out and support Forrest at this important event!

Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Location: San Diego County Office of Education
Address: 6401 Linda Vista Road, CA 92111
Time: 5:50 p.m.

View Map of debate location

For more information contact Sherry at sherry@califelectprotect.net or call Jim at 760 500-1927.