Eliminate the Need for the Bongo-Bucks
Television Is the Enemy of Democracy. One of the most astounding facts of our political life is how often a common sense solution to a problem, or even the problem itself, is utterly ignored by almost everyone. The prevailing cliché is “the elephant in the room.” People who use or hear this expression generally assume that everyone really knows that the grey pachyderm is there, but for various reasons, pretend that it isn't. In fact most people don't even see the great beast. That is what is so astounding.
The elephant in this case is the glaring fact that our democracy is being devoured by television like a pork chop in a pool of famished piranhas.
Max Frankel's essay is worth reading in its entirety, which you can do here, but this is the first paragraph:
The movement to clean up campaign financing is going nowhere for the simple reason that the reformers are aiming at the wrong target. They are laboring to limit the flow of money into politics when they should be looking to limit the candidates' need for money to pay for television time. It is the staggering price of addressing the voters that drives the unseemly money chase.
The amounts of money needed to run any kind of campaign—local, state, or national—were enormous when Frankel wrote and have grown exponentially since. Most of this money comes from lobbyists for special interest groups, primarily large corporations. As Frankel says, “Surely no honest business, union or interest group would sanction large contributions if the investment did not pay off.” And if the special interests get paid, who does the paying? That's right; we do.
We would, says Frankel, be better off if the Federal, state, and local governments paid directly for television time to allow candidates the opportunity to define themselves, provided that they do not buy commercial time of their own. The same would apply to the proponents and opponents of individual issues that are decided by the voters. Something of this sort is absolutely crucial. Merely trying to limit campaign contributions or spending is utterly pointless without it. As Frankel concludes his essay:
When campaigning for a seat in Congress costs 10 or more times the amount earned by its occupant and when it takes half a billion to run for President, who can compete? Mainly the wealthy or those beholden to the wealthy. There is no point dreaming of a law that says “you may not” so long as the political system daily teaches the participants “you must.” Until the candidates for office in America are relieved of the costly burden of buying television time, the scandals will grow.
A Constitutional Amendment. Free television time for candidates and issues is a great idea. Here is another: A constitutional amendment requiring that any public medium (television, radio, newspapers) that accepts political advertizing must provide a free public forum for discussion of the subject of that advertizing, pro and con, at a time or place roughly concurrent with the running of the advertizement; the exact details to be specified by federal legislation.
The important fact is this: for a democracy to work, the persons in power, legislators and executives, must be held responsible to an informed public. The present system insures that the bulk of the public is misinformed, and those who hold the reins of power are beholden, not to the public, but to those bent on misinforming — and often robbing — the public. If that does not change, our democracy is doomed.
There will be enormous opposition to any real reform. Many people benefit from this corrupt system. The television interests make enormous sums from it. The special interests get filthy rich from it. And the politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, love it. Like most Americans, they too worship and adore the rich, just because they are rich. They are only too happy to suck up to the wealthy, while corruption means that the rich actually suck up to them. And all they have to do is pass a few teeny little laws or so. How could that be so bad?
The only ones who lose are the people.
Or . . .