Disclosure legislation if I'm not mistaken was passed in
some form, though I'm not sure how it was watered down
or what riders were attached.
This disclosure legislation I believe dealt with soft
money, which is at the core of McCain/Feingold.
This is the insidious money that is funded
through state parties and deals with "issues"
in sound bites for what were frequently
unnamed donors.
"Soft" money was the loop hole created by the limit
laws that put restraints on individual and PAC
contributions, but the Supreme Court did uphold
the right to contribute as much as you want
to your own campaign as an issue of "free" speech
....paid for out of pocket.
This self indulgence really hasn't been as fruitful,
since many well healed haven't been able to
buy elections like Forbes, Huffington, and Perot,
amongst others though so far it has helped Corzine.
So many feel disenfranchised that I'm not even
sure that if free air time were offered as a social
responsibilty by networks that spew so much junk,
that people would still watch. Offering free airtime
would mitigate the need for money to reach
a mass audience and thus reduce the excuse for fund raising....
But I had a better idea, I wrote in response to an editorial
a few years back about voter apathy and free air time
that is even more apropos in today's television
environment , and that is to make political
elections into TV game shows. Maybe we can even
get Regis to host...
Here's what I wrote ..of course I was being sarcastic...
May 27, 1996
RE: Free Television for Presidential Candidates
Even if the three major networks, FOX, and CNN all agreed
on a consistent format, during prime time, to provide the
Presidential candidates with free television air time
during the fall campaign, your recent editorials regarding
this issue still beg the question, will the electorate
watch? And, if they watch, will the electorate be better
informed on the "issues"?
Both of these questions presume that only if more
information were made available to the people directly
from the candidates than the electorate would make better
decisions. Both of these questions also presume that the
candidates would be less inclined to mud sling if their
words were directly associated with their faces.
Obviously there are already plenty of view points on the
issues (from the right to the left to the innocuous)
available to people actively seeking, rather than passively
waiting to be spoon fed, information. And obviously the
electorate chooses to be passive and not make an active
effort to be informed. But rather than chastise "the
masses" for sitting on their collective butts, and rather
than propose ten minute spots for each candidate that won’t
be watched, the networks should jointly produced a weekly
half-hour television game/sport show appropriately called
"Figures Lie and Liars Figure" that presents political
information in a less rigorous more entertaining format.
Each of the five networks listed above would air the show
on one week night. Each week the show would deal with a
single issue. At the start of the show the two major party
candidates would come to the center of a stage, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court would flip a coin, and
whichever candidate called the coin flip could choose to
go first or second. Each candidate would have ten
un-interupted minutes to talk on the issue. The candidate
speaking second would be conspicuously sealed in a sound
proof clear plastic bubble, so that his position on the
issue wouldn’t be a reaction to the first candidate’s
statement. There would be a live audience of randomly
chosen registered voters. Their applause, groans, laughter
would be constantly measured. Positive reactions would
give the candidate points. Negative reactions would
subtract points. Negatively comments about the opposing
candidate would also subtract points. After both candidates
made their ten minute presentations, a ten minute fact
and spin check by third party candidates would further
effect the point total. The candidate with the most points
at the end of thirty minutes would be declared the victor
on the issue.
Seriously,
z |
