He called for one network to do it on the third debate, the CNN one if I recall; and I cannot remember whether it is even legal to do, or whether the GOP or elections officials had anything to say about whether it even could be done.
To know the answer to about tonight's event, in addition to the legalities of campaigning, we would have to read the hastily-arranged contracts and what sort of last-minute advertiser sponsorships C-SPAN was able to buy, since they did not have a long time to plan. Advertisers are where the money comes from. Had Trump stayed in the scheduled debate at Fox, that debate has had weeks of advertising already pumped into it. I don't know exactly how the contracts work, and whether the amount of network profit is tied to the viewer ratings as projected in advance or after the fact. But it seems logical that this last-minute event maay not have as much "margin" as a Fox event would have had. So I don't know.
But I do think his point in the past was well taken: the GOPe and the networks were indeed banking on his drawing power to cash in with sponsors and then were loading up more and more debates and longer debates with ineffectual formats just to milk the situation; recognizing his ratings draw as the winner of all the debates, he tried to get them to give some of their unexpected high profits to the veterans.
The way you posed your challenge sounds like you have judged him hypocritical in advance, like the long-lost relatives who show up expecting a handout when they learn another relative has had a windfall; when in fact he is under no more obligation to do it at all.
I hope I’m not posting this twice - just had a “fat finger” error.
You raise some fair points. Perhaps it was somehow impossible or illegal for a network to make a donation tied to ratings on a specific event, and that whole idea has been dropped as a result. But that is speculative. Possible I suppose, but speculative.
Certainly any negotiations required to televise his rally tonight must have been executed quickly. But the greatest deal maker who has ever lived shouldn’t have a problem with that, in fact he should be able to use the pressure as an advantage to get what he wants. If Trump wanted a network donation for vets and could legally get it, he could have simply walked away from TV coverage of his rally. TV cameras aren’t necessary to raise money for vets, but they are necessary for his campaign. Which reminds me of the second question I asked you.
Certainly the networks have milked Trump’s star power for ratings and revenues. I applauded Trump and Carson for requiring the 2 hour limit. But surely we don’t think the Republican nominee should be arguing that a private corporation is making too much money; Sanders and Hillary can make that argument, but it’s not a Republican or conservative argument.
And that demonstrates why I actually do consider Trump to be a hypocrite. He has been all over all sides of each issue and we simply don’t know what he’s going to say next, other than whatever benefits him at the moment. We can’t even trust him to stick to the fundamental belief in private property, as demonstrated by my case above, and perhaps by his absolute defense of Eminent Domain for needs which are clearly not in the broad public interest. On a personal level he is quick to resort to personal insult, and even quicker to complain about other people insulting him.
I don’t think Trump is purely a hypocrite on the veterans issue. He has truly done good work for them and I’m sure he has been sincere and will do more good work for them in the future. But the event tonight is tied up too much in his own political best interests for me to see it as altruistic.