| Election Reform |
|
|
|
The Federal Communications Commission was established by Congress in 1934 to regulate the private commercial use of the broadcast spectrum which is owned by the commonwealth of American citizens. As such, radio and TV stations are granted a “license” to broadcast over airwaves owned by the American public, provided they serve the public interest. This is not a radical idea. It is the same principle as when public land is leased for cattle grazing or mineral resource mining. The public owns the resource, the public benefits. Previously, the FCC measured a broadcast station’s community service by requiring broadcasters to submit to a public survey of the satisfaction level of Americans in their license area at the end of every term. They were judged on their public service activities to the community. With the combination of exorbitant TV advertising costs, and the elimination of the “public service” clause of the FCC law, middle class Americans are being crowded out of elective office by millionaires who can fund their own races. The New York Times reports (11-26-07) that Republican Party officials in Washington DC are aggressively recruiting wealthy candidates to finance their own races. Democrats have their own multi-millionaires. Nothing against millionaires who obviously work hard and use their talents, but unless the electoral playing field is leveled, only the very rich will be able to run for federal office. In 2004, roughly $1.8 Billion out of $4 Billion in campaign expenditures was spent on U.S. presidential and congressional elections for 600 professional consultants offering media advice and TV-radio airtime ads. Consider the media bias of a “news network” which kept a Republican presidential candidate who received 10% of the votes in Iowa caucuses from participating in their New Hampshire TV “debate,” but then included another Republican presidential candidate who received only 3% in the Iowa caucuses! The solution is quite simple: as a cost of renewing a FCC broadcast TV-radio license, equal airtime during elections should be made available in identical formats to any candidate who has met the balloting requirements of state and-or federal law. And no additional broadcast time should be made available for purchase outside that system. The public airwaves would be used for public service. This should be the rule at least for federal races. This would not affect broadcast media news coverage in the least. Candidates could still spend as much as they want on billboards, signs, mail. Millionaires could still run for office but the public airwaves would offer equity and allow true public discourse. Citizens are understandably tired of the lack of civility in negative TV political commercials as now aired. Having all candidates in the same room face to face would considerably reduce or even eliminate name calling, innuendo, wild campaign claims, and personal attacks. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
