FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Thank you Registered!
Posted on 06/13/2002 8:49:26 AM PDT by meandog
McCain to Lead New Reform Fight For Free TV Time
Morton M. Kondracke
Source: Roll Call
Improbable as enactment of campaign finance reform once looked, the next step - providing candidates with free television time - looks even more difficult. But it ought to happen.
Improbable as enactment of campaign finance reform once looked, the next step - providing candidates with free television time - looks even more difficult. But it ought to happen.
It's difficult because the mighty broadcast TV industry - which is gorging itself on political advertising revenue while spending precious little on political coverage - will fight the idea with all the influence it can muster.
And free TV time is also a hard sell in Congress because it would give challengers more of a fighting chance against incumbents, who generally have the money to buy ads. And yet, there's lots of merit behind the proposal, which is due to be introduced June 19 by (who else?) Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), once reform's Don Quixote and now its St. George.
TV advertising is the most expensive single outlay in most competitive campaigns - up to 75 percent in some 2000 Senate rates - so making some of it free would help make up for the loss of soft money in this year's reform law.
And the new McCain bill would answer another widespread complaint about the McCain-Feingold law: that it severely wounds the political parties.
A key feature of his new bill will be a virtual "broadcast bank," two-thirds of whose outlays would go to the political parties to hand out to their candidates in the form of vouchers to "purchase" TV time.
The other third - designed to help challengers - would go to candidates who raise a certain threshold amount, probably $50,000, in small contributions, probably $100 or less.
One reformer involved in developing the proposal, American Enterprise Institute scholar Norman Ornstein (a Roll Call contributor), estimated the value of the bank idea at $640 million over two years - about half the $1.2 billion that stations could expect to collect in political ad revenue in 2004.
Drafters of the bill haven't decided yet whether to simply mandate that TV stations furnish the time as part of their legal obligation to serve the public interest or charge them a rental fee for the estimated $70 billion worth of spectrum space that Congress gave them six years ago to develop digital TV, which they haven't done.
Another element in the McCain bill will be a requirement that TV stations devote at least two hours per week to political coverage in which candidates are on camera during the last month of an election campaign.
The broadcast industry will surely howl that the free-time proposal will rob stations of revenue, which it will. It may even charge that it's an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of the press, which it's not.
As the Supreme Court has affirmed, the airwaves belong to the public and Congress is empowered to set terms by which space is leased to TV stations, including a requirement that they carry political ads and serve the public interest.
The evidence is overwhelming that broadcasters are profiteering from politics, not serving the public interest.
Over the years, the amount of election coverage by local stations and the major broadcast networks has plummeted while revenue for political advertising has skyrocketed.
It's hard to escape the notion that there's a conspiracy at work here: Candidates can't get their message across to the public through so-called "free media," i.e. news coverage, so they have to buy time for political ads.
The three major networks have drastically reduced coverage of national party conventions and presidential primary debates. In 2000, nightly network newscasts devoted 28 percent less time to the presidential race than they did in 1988, the last time the presidential race didn't include an incumbent.
As bad as network performance is, at least serious voters can turn to cable television for national political news - in fact, as a Fox News Channel contributor, I invite them to do so.
But the situation at the state and local level is more dire.
A new report by the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate showed that of 152 debates engaged in by Senate, House and gubernatorial candidates in 10 key states in 2000, 63 percent received no television coverage at all.
When they were covered, most often it was on low-viewership PBS or independent stations, not network affiliates. Only 29 of 109 House debates got any coverage.
The one exception to the trend was in Minnesota, where some stations carried all three debates between now-Sen. Mark Dayton (D)and then-Sen. Rod Grams (R). All network affiliates carried the final debate, which was watched by almost a quarter of the state's eligible voters.
Leading up to the 2000 elections, the Alliance for Better Campaigns called on stations to voluntarily devote five minutes per night to candidate-on-camera political coverage in the month before elections.
According to one study, the stations averaged about 45 seconds. Another study shows that just before elections stations tripled the cost of political ad time, ignoring a law requiring candidates to get the lowest unit rate.
This year, the Senate passed an amendment to guarantee the lowest rate, but it was cut out of the final campaign finance law, much to the joy of the National Association of Broadcasters.
The fight for free TV time will be an epic battle, pitting McCain, a media hero, against the broadcasters. This is definitely a dragon-slaying job for St. George.
Thank you Registered!
Using someone else's property without compensation is THEFT!
"It was the Strawberries, Cindy!"
Your "fine American patriot" lately enjoys urinating and/or defacating on the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend.
The whole idea is based on a false premise: that television is an effective means of informing the public on candidate characteristics. Whether it is via "free media" or paid advertising, the "message" that Mort is so wound up about is a simple grab for votes like an ad for Nike is a grab for money. And as such, it is not always in the best interests of the company (candidate) to present a complete and accurate picture.
Free media pieces are as scripted as the paid ads, and have as much substance. Though I disagree with most newspaper editorial boards (because most tilt leftward), editorials at least must adhere to rules of logic and truth.
While it would be impossible (illegal) to do so, the public would be better informed if television representations of candidates were banned altogether.
Huh? McCain is a "media" hero but he is up against the "broadcasters". In general, aren't the "media" and "broadcasters" the SAME people?
We owe "Lieutenant Dan" (ala Forrest Gump) McCain because of his military service. We just don't owe him as much as he has taken recently and what he wants now.
Depriving the media of ad revenue ain't it.
And just whose property is being taken without compensation?. Try reading the article next time.
---max
It certainly is.
That's why I demand free television time for candidates, as partial compensation for the license which protects broadcasters from competition, and for they use of my (and your) airwaves.
Broadcasters are already burdened with price controls on political advertising. The amount of work required to protect a TV station's income stream in the months prior to political seasons is phenomenal.
A station must be extremely careful not to accidentally schedule a low dollar client - or zero dollar bonus spots for the higher paying clients - in large revenue generating time periods.
If you let Mom & Pop in for $50, or 'super-size' Toyota's buy with a free spot, McCain gets the same rate when he comes calling.
Then there's the blanket two hours of political coverage per week. Rule #1 in TV: All markets are different. In some markets, especially the big ones, there are dozens of politicians fighting for air time. Some smaller markets, may not even be as big as a congressional district. Is it fair to make Ottumwa, Iowa AND New York City dedicate the same amount of time each to political coverage?
TV stations don't have the same liberty as radio stations when it comes to commercial inventory. A radio station can create room for more commercials by simply deleting one song per hour. That's not the case in TV. The amount of commercial time available is determined by the programming (except for local news, which CAN be easily manipulated for inventory purposes) If you get six minutes of time in FRIENDS, you get six minutes. You can't delete part of the show to make room for the politicians.
Free political ads would also take away slots that paid advertisers might have reserved - and in the political season, they would take away most, if not all of the TV stations inventory. These free spots would flood the airwaves beyond the levels they now occupy, displacing paying customers - who also have the right to buy advertising when they want and where they want.
There's a first amendment right no one talks about - perhaps Sears could sue McCain for violation of their rights as an advertiser?
GET RID OF THIS FREELOADER !!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.