Well, for a change, I got a coin-flip this week that threw me for a loop. I am supposed to argue that we should maintain the public campaign finance system for federal elections (and, perhaps, mandate its use). But, by golly, after my research, I decided that it doesn't make a lick of difference where the candidates get their "individual contributions."
The term, "public financing," is a bit of a misnomer. The fact is that money provided by the government comes from individual taxpayers (private citizens) who decided to contribute $3.00 of their personal tax obligation to the campaign finance fund for presidential elections. Yes, this is a small amount from each donor, but it adds up (though, as of 2006, fewer than 10% of taxpayers contributed annually--more on this issue, later). Moreover, there is an element of private donations within the public finance system, because it only provides "matching funds" of up to $250 per private donation. "Private financing" simply means that individuals donate directly to candidates instead of doing so through their tax returns. The difference is that individuals can (and do) contribute considerably more, though also limited by law, through this direct-donationFundamentally, proponents of public campaign financing say that this system reduces the possibility of corruption (because the source of candidate funding is known in advance, and is above-board), and helps to minimize the relative advantage of having deeper coffers than other candidates, such that "buying an election" becomes less likely. Under this system, candidates are not permitted to use more than $50,000 of their own money for their campaigns (unlike the substantial personal financial input provided by previous candidates, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few). Of concern to candidates of parties other than Democratic or Republican, public financing is not available to them.
Those who support private campaign financing suggest that it, alone, protects the constitutional right of (unlimited) free speech, and that this system is regulated sufficiently to guard against corruption. The system is said to be superior because each donor has the right to direct their support to a specific candidate (where no such ability exists with public finance funds), further protecting the rights of donors to not support a candidate they don't like. Moreover, there are no limits on how much can be amassed in the aggregate, so if a candidate enjoys support from a much larger proportion of the public than his/her opponents, then his advantage in advertising funds is proportionate and fair. Finally, any party's candidates can get this form of funding -- not just Democrats and Republicans.
So, why doesn't it matter which system we use?
Of minor relevance, there are some equalizing factors between the two systems. First, the advantages of private financing are mitigated by available funds through public financing: 1) public financing subsidizes the nomination conventions of those candidates that accept it (not an insubstantial cost), and 2) public financing pays for the costs of attorneys and other administrative costs (also nothing to sneeze at). But that's not the main issue.
A less obvious issue is that, while we all know that public financing, at least in the 2008 campaign, garnered Senator McCain only about half the money that was collected by President-elect
If, however, candidates were required to use public financing (or, more accurately, prohibited from using private financing), the percentage of citizens choosing to donate with their tax returns would likely rise precipitously. So, while the free choice to accept private financing exists along with the public financing system, a candidate can choose either method and take his chances, but private financing seems to hold the advantage so long as it remains available. This, by itself, is no reason to mandate one or the other.
The overarching reason the system chosen doesn't matter is that they each deal with "hard money" contributions only. Both systems allow expenditures of "soft money" contributions through the activities of political action committees (PACs), and by organizations known as "527s" and "501(c)s." Taken together, these organizations spend unlimited donation monies to support issues (directly), and candidates (indirectly ). The only "free speech" limitation on these groups is that they cannot suggest voting for or against a particular candidate. They can (and do), however, say things like, "candidate A is the only patriotic contender," and "candidate B is clearly unpatriotic." The power of these groups to affect elections was well illustrated by the soft-money-fund
Some might argue that direct candidate ads have a great deal of impact on voters' choices. That may be true, but I submit that the number of ads, and the geographic spread of them, is not as important to campaigns as it once was because of the advent of 24 hour news networks that endlessly replay the campaign ads of the candidates during the entire course of the election cycle. Even though John McCain spent far less than Barack Obama, for instance, I saw every important political ad that McCain produced as many times as I saw Obama's ads (okay...maybe not quite as many times, but effectively so). The news pundits see these ads as free content, and this essentially gives every candidate free air time. Unfortunately, the news outlets also give free replay time to the ads from the PACs, 527s and 501(c)s. So, again, the power of soft money organizations remains superior. Until this changes (through FCC regulations on media or a Constitutional amendment limiting soft money free speech), there is simply no important difference between the public and private campaign finance systems.
Campaign finance is a very complicated issue, to be sure. But concerning ourselves with an either/or argument over public or private donations is, quite simply, a misdirected effort. Both systems are regulated to prevent corruption, with debatable success, perhaps. But campaign finance reform needs to concern itself primarily with soft money controls if we expect to level the playing field for all candidates and prevent corruption and influence peddling in presidential campaigns.
Posts
25 comments:
What? You couldn't find a more boring subject?
For as far as I did read.
1) I didn't know a taxpayer was a "donor." I rather thought he was the victim since he is forced to "donate." Robin Hood was nothing more than a common thief, just like our government.
2) Corporations donate in the name of their employees........they get their money in there.
3) Some would argue that Obama DID buy this past election. Then again he's just a puppet and the public is too stupid to realize it.
Anonymous,
We tried to find the most boring subject we could think of. Sorry if we didn't succeed.
1) You're wrong. Taxpayers have a choice to either check the $3.00 donation box, or not. Nobody is forced to donate. What country are you filing tax returns in? Robin Hood is a fictional character, by the way.
2) Corporations are legally prohibited from donating to candidates at all. You may e referring to bundling, which is legal. Otherwise, you are simply confused again.
3)Whatever.
Anonymous, you are welcome to suggest a topic that you find more interesting. If you prefer we argue the merits of say, court-ordered lobotomy, I'm sure I could find some good arguments to support such a program.
Please, please remember that our goal, as I've so often stated, is to generate intelligent discussion and debate, not pander to hateful malcontents such as you demonstrate yourself to be. Any sensible, reasonable comment or criticism is welcome.
Okay, we finally got that done. Damn, that was hard, but you did admirably. And in spite of Anonymous' believing it's a "boring" topic, I still think it's important. But what a convaluted mess we've created.
Thank you for mentioning the 527's and 501's (if you had gotten me started on these I would never have finished.) The catch-22 of the free speech argument is that individuals are under no obligation to prove what they say unless their assertions are slanderous/libelous. But I'm not sure that the courts have ever decided definitively that such protection extends to political action commitees or groups such as these (you would know this better than I.)
I would contend that it should not. Any media outlet agreeing to accept these groups' money should be required to prove the veracity of claims made in the ads. If they fail the truth test, the group forfeits it's money and the ad goes in the dumpster.
Also, I agree that McCain could have opted out of public financing. But Obama would have won the debate by using McCain's voting record against him - hell, it's how he won the election anyway, meaning you're probably right that McCain was fighting a losing battle the whole way.
I would disagree that it doesn't matter. On it's face, the government doling out the $3.00 donations to political parties inevitably leads to certain taxpayers underwriting campains and candidates with whom they vehemently disagree. Obviously this is voluntary, but it's been portrayed by McCain backers and others as "patriotic."
I, for one, will never check that box. I'd like to see the box replaced with one that allows me to donate a portion of my refund to deficit reduction. Maybe this would be a good future topic.
Anyway, many good points made, as always.
Ok, you guys have to quit taking this stuff so personally. If you are going to write a blog like this you are going to have to get your feelings off you finger tips.
Not only that you are going to have to read the point and understand it. OR - write it so we understand it.
I thought you were saying the taxpayer in general was a donor peroid. I got the $3 part, I just don't like being a "donor" on the $3 or any other confiscated money. Also you do understand that the $3 doesn't change your tax burden right? You aren't giving an extra $3.
The other point was, corporations get their money to the candidates one way or another but I guess you didn't read it well enough to understand it. There was no talk about the legality of it, just that they get it there.
I have suggested a subject. Guess you thought it was "boring."
Actually Reed your portion of this was readable and I read all of it. Sorry Dano, I just couldn't wade through all the language tricks, cliches and such.
Again if suggesting the topic was boring is hateful and you really believe that it was hateful, it explains a lot. You're far to sensative and prove you can't actually handle a debate. You guys don't even understand the tongue and cheek retorts.
The written word is very hard to parlay into the emotion or the true meaning behind it with out great skill. Sometimes, it's the readers error as well. I know Robin Hood is fictional, it was a metaphor.
I said what I said to make a couple of points that most readers would understand. You apparently didn't understand them and then had to "educate" me presumably in your replies. Except in this case, it wasn't my error.
Look, if I leave a message again, I will be extra careful to stay on topic. However to keep readers interested some times short points that may not actually "debate" but rather put out another quick thought keeps other readers intested.
I don't read many blogs because I don't like the long dumbass replies I see in most of them. Whether they be political or sports or you name the subject. That's one of the reasons more and more you see only one or two replies posted on really good professional type blogs and they are always short.
You get a couple of different points of view out there, some that agree somewhat and you have an interesting blog without some idiotic debate that isn't worth reading.........which is basically what you did with your two replies to me.
Now maybe you want it that way. Maybe you want it back and forth. My error then. In theory however, you've made your point in the initial blog. Give blogers a couple of days to reply then put in the last word and let it go. Move to the next subject.
Why are you commenting on each others post? Is that really what this is all about? You butted and rebutted but then you have to log in and do it again in the replies? I don't get it? Reed I don't care whether or not you will check the box or not. You guys can talk all that out before you post your initial debates.....then that all should be included. If you forgot a point, you forgot a point. Someone may comment on it and bring up the point you left out but then that continues the debate with other readers which I thought was the whole goal of this thing.
Well I've rambled enough. I'm violating my own advise.
Anonymous, I don't know who you're addressing your comments to. While I didn't suggest your tone was hateful, I agree with Reed--it generally is. Telling us not to be sensitive after you deliberately make offensive remarks is a bit silly.
My "educating" you appeared necessary because you didn't properly read or understand what I wrote. Then you blame me for poor writing skills, once again...so poor that you couldn't finish reading my post (but you somehow thought you understood it, anyway). You're kidding, right?
Please identify my "language tricks, cliches, and such." Once again, we are faced with criticism without examples, which is worthless.
We are not aware of any topic suggestions you've made, because you don't identify who you are. We cannot separate one "anonymous" from another.
As to Reed and I responding to each others' posts, why wouldn't we? Debate doesn't mean that you say one thing and never discuss the issues, it implies and requires a back-and-forth, or dialog. You appear to be the only participant that doesn't care to read even the original posts, no less the comments, so why do you participate at all? As to you misunderstanding the whole point of this blog, I think you may have. This blog is designed to allow us to research each side of a social issue that is debatable, write about our findings, and discuss the pros and cons of each position. It is NOT a blog on which to spew offensive, emotional, or irrational comments. It is NOT designed to please one particular "anonymous" reader who admits to being too bored to even read what's written here, but needs to repeatedly visit to belittle and offend the hosts anyway. EVERYTHING you write appears to be motivated by anger and disrespect, so don't tell us we're too sensitive to run a blog. You're too damaged to participate in one.
I'm through with you.
I hate to say it but it was kind of boring, I have to agree with anon on that one.
It looks like both anon misunderstood a couple of things as well as Dano misunderstood anon on his points. Everyone needs to slow down and take your time and use the correct wording then maybe you won't end up in the little back and forth that you got into.
Anonymous just calm down. Yeah Dano got a little defensive but you'll just have to understand it.
Steve,
Thanks...I think.
I'm sorry we chose this subject, as is Reed. Complicated to research? Oh, yeah. Boring topic? To some, but not others. In terms of writing about our findings in a non-boring way, perhaps Reed did a better job at that than I did -- I don't know. But these posts aren't aspiring television pilots, after all. I certainly think my post was straightforward, on point, and shorter than it could have been to cover the issues. Maybe next time, I insert a joke here and there.
As to anon and myself misunderstanding one another, I just don't agree, but I appreciate your effort as a pro-bono mediator, Steve. I'm certain anon seems to misunderstand what I write frequently, but if I ever misunderstand him/her it is because he/she is attempting to disguise the real point with metaphors, un-telegraphed tongue-in-cheek comments, or an unwelcome offensive tone. As Reed has said more than once, now, I have no interest in reading anon's mind.
One last point on the tone of dialog: This is supposed to be informative and FUN, not contentious. To the extent that anyone finds Reed's or my writing poor, that the blog does a disservice to our education system, or for any other reason is of insufficient quality, I would suggest that they don't visit our little experiment, or don't participate
in comments.
Again, Steve, I appreciate the attempt at mediation. Be advised, though, that Reed and I have the ultimate control over whether any particular commenter's comments show up beneath our posts. Thusfar, we have chosen to show almost all of the negative comments, and to respond to them because, to whatever extent others may have had similar criticisms, addressing them is necessary. It has become increasingly clear, though, that one or two of our visitors is more concerned with spewing unsupported personal ideology than engaging in informative dialog. If it continues, we will simply delete these comments in the future.Perhaps our back-and-forth bickering has become nothing more than a disservice to other readers.
Thanks again for your comments.
You're welcome, and I didn't mean any offense by saying you get a little defensive.
I've only read this blog a time or two but if you are the author of a blog just realize some posters are going to be negative to some degree. That's not necessarily bad either as long as it's civil.
I just noticed that it seems if someone disagrees with you that you seem a little defense. Maybe you're not intending to be and everyone did get a little off topic but as I stated earlier it seemed you guys mis-read a couple of things and it got in a defensive mode. When I was here the other day I noticed it too.
Here's an example by the way, when you say "be advised" - that's defensive. You are essentially putting the reader and readers on notice that you most likely offended by something and that you are getting ready to tell it like it is, which is what you did next by telling me you had control.
Don't misundertand. I hear what you are saying and it is your blog, you can do what you want.
So don't take offense to this, just stop and take a breath before you reply to people like Anon. They may not have meant to be offensive either. If you over react as the blog owner it tends to drive readers away, that's all I'm suggesting.
You have to be bigger than your readers and don't stoop to their level, which many of them are just stiring the pot on purpose anyway. Not that they are really trying to be jerks but a blog is a good place to have fun being a jerk because no one knows you. It's the nature of the beast.
So the blog owners addresses the relavent issues and leave the rest alone.
Well that's what they should do in my opinion at least, for what it's worth.
By the way, when I had my blog, I had one of my best friends who usually agreed with me on most things, delibertly get on try to stir up trouble. It didn't take long to figure him out and I'm not necessarily saying a friend of yours is Anonymous but I have seen it before.
Oh yeah
I turned email notices off just now so it may be a while befor I think of visiting again.
I'll be busy for the next few days anyway, so I'm cutting back on my unnecessary email notices for a couple of weeks.
Steve
Let me help you out a minute. I don't even know these guys or who they are but I have figured out that if you disagree with Dano's world view then he gets offended.
If you make a point as I did in that corporations find away to get their donations in........which was all I did in #2 at the top of the page here. He then had to argue the point. I made a simple statement and he had to re-educate me.
Also he didn't like my point on "donor." The point here is a tax payer isn't a donor. A donor give voluntarily. The government requires our taxes, we don't donate them.
I believe from reading this (especially from reading a comment that Reed wrote) that they believe that you are "donating" to the Presidential election fund. Well that isn't exactly true. You don't give and extra three dollars to the government by "checking the box." You actually redirect some of your tax bill (which doesn't change based on checking the box) to the fund. So I don't know how that is a donation. It's just you getting to decide on $3 whole dollars of your tax liability and how it's spent. The rest of your tax liability is spent how congress decides.
He got upset because I said that it was a boring topic. I don't get it. That's my opinion, it actually wasn't meant to be critical really. I was just saying I couldn't read it all because it just got lost in it's point.
Well then when he got upset I reacted too.
So to you and Dano I apologize for not being more eloquent (I probably spelled that wrong.) I guess I didn't have to be so blount but I also didn't think anyone would be so easily offended.
What? Dano gets defensive? Surely you jest? ;)
As Dano pointed out, the public financing system is very anti-third party. Althouth the Libertarian Party in the past has qualified for such funds, their candidate has refused such funds as it was against the very policies they were advocating. But that was a rare occurance. It is unlikely under the current rules to happen again, or is it likely to be allowed to happen.
Prevention of corruption or "influence peddling" in campaigns via public financing OR through soft money controls is irrelevant. It's not going to happen. The war on drugs has not quenched the thirst for drugs, all it has done is increase the price of them.
Unintended consequences. Consider what would happen if you try to limit soft money or limiting the amount that candidates could spend. There are so many additional loopholes and ways to contribute that you could never stop them. Say ABC Chemical Co. makes soap and adheasives and would like some environmental regulations softened. But they can't donate (or donate enough) to a candidate that they might could influence because of arbitrary laws. There are numerous other ways they could assist. They could name the candidat a corporate spokesman and put him on billboards across the country? Nope, going to make that illegal? How about ABC Chemcial starts a subsidiary company that is a book publisher, hires a well-known national pundit to write a rosey book sure to sell well that makes the candidate look like a glamerous movie star? Not going to allow that? What about ABC Chemical makes it optional for employees to work overtime at its 43 national location stuffing envelops -- paying them optional overtime? make that illegal too, huh? Do you get the point? How many things do you make illegal to stop all the influence peddling? Where there is a will there is a way.
I would say there is a far more unfair system in place than either public or private financing of political campaigns. The Commission on Presidential Debates is one. Secondly, is the media's choice of candidates to cover and which not to cover. When Ron Paul didn't reflect the neo-conservative viewpoint of FOX NEWS, he was excluded from a primary debate hosted by the network, despite raising more money than any other Republican in the 4th quarter of 2007. In all previous elections, the most money raised meant more FREE media than all that money could buy. That didn't happen with Paul, a constitutionalist.
The Paul factor of the last election cycle shows me that the actual donations received, public and/or private, doesn't matter nearly as much as the FREE media recieved. And the old arguement that private/public donations equal FREE media no longer holds any water.
So might I suggest a new topic? Would the return to a Fairness Doctrine be Fair?
Twilley...it sounds like you sort of agree with my appraisal that public vs. private financing doesn't matter, and that soft money is the problem. But the bulk of your comment suggests that nothing can be done to appropriately address the influence peddling problem. Reed and I said the problem is complicated, but I guess each of us has more confidence than you that SOMETHING could be done.
I'm surprised that you suggest bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, because it is almost only supported by Democrats, and is roundly opposed by Libertarians, Republicans, and Constitutionalists. The Doctrine does not, of course, have to do specifically with federal election campaigns, but with issues of "public importance" (which would likely cover federal election issues). But the Equal Time Rule remains in effect, and it DOES apply exclusively to political campaigns. What, in your mind, is appealing or useful in the Fairness Doctrine that is not already remedied (or supposed to be) by the Equal Time Rule?
The fairness doctrine is a clear violation of Free Speech. If the Democrats succeed in putting this back in place God Help Our Republic.
Harleroad, I don't understand your position. I admit I am no expert on the Fairness Doctrine, but my understanding is that it doesn't limit free speech. It appears to only require equal access to opposing views. Please explain your position.
Dano,
You are correct, I agree with you in a sense public financing doesn't matter, in that it doesn't achieve its stated goal. Of course, most government programs should be done away with in my view, but certainly the ones that don't obviously achieve their goal should be at the top of the priority list.
My comments about campaign finance just happened to lead into a fair time arguement -- for which the current (forthcoming) national debate will center around a "Fairness Doctrine."
Don't misunderstand my advocacy for that subject to be up for debate as an advocacy for the Fairness Doctrine policy.
Since that's a bit off topic unless you guys choose to go there, I'll keep my Fairness Doctrine thougths to myself for now.
Twilley, I get it...you advocate debating the Fairness Doctrine, not necessarily re-introducing it. We'll take it under advisement.
Reed and Dano,
I agree with both of you that we can't have it both ways and also that it's a complex issue.
However, I still maintain the fair way to accomplish the problem of public campaign financing is to have the IRS non-voluntarily deduct $1 or $2 from our taxes and allocate the income evenly amongst all the candidates.
It matters not that people would be "donating" to someone they wouldn't otherwise. It is a small price to pay to have a level playing field where campaigns are concerned. The merits of the candidates' platforms would be focal. Besides, we don't have a say in where else our taxes go.
Florida voters approved the Lottery because the monies collected were supposed to have gone toward education. It did not.
So, let's change the media laws, the protected speech, and be proactive in that way towards a better public campaign financing system.
Deb,
I don't know exactly what you mean by let's change the protected speech. Are you talking about the First Amendment?
So under the Deb Plan we force people to give tax dollars to campaigns and we divide all the money evenly among all candidates? Are you including the Libertarian candidates? What about Green Party? What about the Taxpayers Party of Louisiana's nominee? What about the Constitution Party of Alaska's candiate? What about the Socialist Party of America candidate? What about the 743 other independant candidates that get on the ballot of one state in the union? All candidates? Really? OK. Sounds good. But something tells me you really don't plan on giving an equal amount of that money to EVERY candidate for president in the nation. If you do, the money would be spread so thin. Then they will raise taxes to make up for the revenue that that few dollars takes from other social programs the fed runs.
Deb, Twilley brings up one of the major problems with spreading tax dollars to all the candidates:there are often hundreds of them. I disagree, also, that we don't have control over our tax dollars (at least in theory); being able to control where our tax dollars go is generally done through pressuring legislators to do what we (the constituents) want them to do.
Although Twilley may disagree, I do think that media access rules should be changed--perhaps to include veracity constraints on political ads.The biggest hurdle, I think, remains the free speech protection for 527s and 501(c)s, without any controls over truthfulness.
Well the misnomer of the Fairness Doctrine is that it is promoting "fairness."
Currently talk radio is dominated by either sports or conservative opinion politics.
Naturally the Democrats and Liberals don't like it and they want to force radio stations to have "equal time."
There is two problems with this way of thinking, nevermind the fact that liberals tend to dominate the 24 hour news channels.
The first problem is the free market. Radio stations favor conservative radio because they are making money with it. The failure of Air America tends to reveal that liberal thought didn't sell well on radio. Plus talk radio is intended as entertainment (whether you agree with the host or not isn't their goal.) If Liberal talk would sell, radio stations would carry it. It just happens that Limbaugh, Bortz, Hannity, O'Reilly, and about 5 other (conservative or libertarian) hosts dominate the air waves. Democrats don't like it and think it's unfair. (The free market is unfair?)
The second problem is that you are restricting "free speech" if you force anyone or anything to give "equal" time. Don't misunderstand, what I'm saying here. It sounds good to say everyone should get equal time and they do. Forcing someone's free speech off the air just to specifically have "counter speech" time in one particular media is actually a restriction of free speech.
Free Speech (especially political speech which oh by the way is the only real protected speech)should not be restricted in any way shape or form, and forcing someone to present a counter view, isn't free speech. In fact by definition it is now restricted speech.
Liberals dominate Newspapers and TV, no one is complaining about it. They are complaining about talk radio. So if you get Limbaugh for three hours they want to force a radio station to then have say....Franken for 3 hours too. That is a restriction on the radio station which has the right to air whatever they want.
Essentially Liberals are trying to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" to undermine talk radio. Right now conservatives dominate and radio stations can't make any money with Liberal talk. The dirty little secret however is that liberals want to restrict conservative speech, period end of story. Hence the Fairness Doctrine.
Ok, here the point. No speech of any kind should be restricted based on the premise of "fair." That actually isn't fair. Twenty years from now Liberal speech may dominate talk radio. Do we want to restrict it then too? (Plus liberals have NPR already which is largely liberal talk.)
Ok, why do I care? Yeah, I'm a talk radio junkie. Sports and Politics in particular. Don't misunerstand however. Alan Colmes is a liberal who used to have a radio show and when I could get it I would listen to it too. I also used to listen to Mike Malloy a lot out of Atlanta, also a liberal. Right now in Tallahassee we don't really have any of those guys on the air at the moment and my old AM radio that would pick up Timbuktu doesn't work anymore. The point is that I don't listen just because it's conservative, it's just whats on, I like talk radio and I'm in the car a lot.
Here's my point. I don't want any government entity telling any kind of media what they have to write, read or report. It's a slippery slope and real freedom rides on it's back.
I mean if they are going to do this to talk radio don't they also have to tell MSNBC that they have to have counter parts to Mathews, Olberman and Maddow? Maybe they can move Olberman to Fox after O'Reilly and then Hannity can move to MSNBC in Olberman's old spot. (Pick up on the tongue and cheek tone here.....LOL)
I don't think that's what we really want. If they start with talk radio, where will it go next? Governments always grow their programs so you know one day someone will try to define what is fair in the newspaper and or Television, and if they restrict radio then rightly so.
I don't want to see it. If WFLA finds a good Liberal to put on and it sells, I'll listen to it. I don't want the government telling them they "must" do it.
I like talk radio, I listen to it all. I know about the fairness doctrine because natually it's addressed at radio and I listen to it.
The government simply doesn't need to be trying to decide what kind of speech may or may not be fair.
Also to be fair, I would listen to talk radio if it was all liberal. Just right now in the free market liberal talk isn't selling. Probably because liberal points of view tend to dominate the rest of the media (Yes Fox is on TV but the PEW Research center also listed it as the most "fair" network on reporting the news. But let's not get into that.)
I guess my fear is that if we let the Fairness Doctrine rule radio what other freedoms go next.
History has always shown that governments (left or right oriented) always end up restricting one sort of freedom or another. Restricting Free Market Speech on the radio isn't the answer in exchanging of ideas.
LOL I guess if Dan Patrick talks about the Cowboys positively for five minutes in turn he will then have to talk positively about the Redskins for the next five minutes (Understand the joke here now.)
I mentioned it because of you topic. It kind of goes along. Do we want to say all politicians have to have equal budgets? That sounds good but isn't that a restriction of the freedom of the people?
Hey Harkleroad, these guys aren't going to like your comments. Dano in particular is very transparent in his writing. I'll bet you've figured it out already however. Hard to say though, I wouldn't have let them know that you listen to talk radio. They'll think your some kind of right wing wacko.
Local talk radio here is all worried about it. I live in Chicago (Obama's home town in case no one knows) and man the local hosts are really worried about the fairness doctrine. They think Obama's going to try to shut them down specifically.
I don't think so. I don't think the American people will really put up with the fairness doctrine. A lot of people don't like talk radio but most people out in the real world will agree that you can't censor speach.
Harkleroad...thanks for the explanation.
The Fairness Doctrine was in effect until the late 1980's, as I recall. Why was it done away with at that time?
Intertestingly, from about 1988 to 1995, I listened to talk radio all day, every day, and among my favorite programs was Rush Limbaugh, but I remember distinctly that his program was followed (in my market) by a very liberal program (with the word "America" in its title, but I can't remember the title). That was AFTER the Fairness Doctrine was canceled. The liberal program was popular, but disappeared some years later, which I assume was appropriately due to market forces.
The only other comment I have is that the Fairness Doctrine, while perhaps a hot topic in talk radio, certainly doesn't apply only to radio broadcasts. If it were reinstituted, it would apply to television as well--like it did before (so, yes, MSNBC and FOX might have challenges to their programming under the Doctrine).
So it seems the consensus is the Fairness Doctrine should be forever forgotten, and I tend to agree. However, it does not go to the root of my original argument, which basically says their is a place for regulation. Not in the speech itself, but based on the obscene amounts of money raised and the sources of these funds.
It is indeed a market issue. Take the government out of the fundraising except in an oversight capacity to ensure compliance with state and federal law, and tighten those laws and close the loopholes. Then let the market work by allowing the candidate with the best ideas to rise to the top of the money list.
Post a Comment