|
Dec 12, 2006 -- Congress Urged to Support Communication Voucher System In the wake of record spending on campaign television advertising, the Campaign Legal Center is asking Members of Congress to support a communications voucher system in the 110th Congress to reduce the staggering fundraising burdens on candidates. The constant pursuit of contributions to fund television ads has reduced the effectiveness of our elected officials and undermined our system of government. The Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act previously introduced in the 108th Congress proposed just such a system.
A copy of the letter is below.
December 12, 2006
Dear Senator:
During the 2006 elections, the nation's television stations took in an estimated $2.25 billion for campaign television ads, according to TNSI-CMAG. Voters' television screens were inundated from Labor Day to Election Day with 30- and 60-second ads from candidates, parties and independent groups. Few of these ads actually presented useful information and a growing number of them were so-called "contrast" (read "negative" or "attack") ads. While these staggering revenues are obviously good news for the bottom line of television stations and the corporations who own them, they reveal a serious problem in our current political system and how candidates communicate with voters.
The growing spending on TV ads by candidates running for public office vastly increases the amount of time candidates and parties must devote to fundraising to communicate with voters. Broadcasters take in staggering sums renting time to candidates to communicate with the public over the publicly-owed airwaves. It is a system which enriches broadcasters but diminishes our democracy.
There is a better way. In past Congresses, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Representatives Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) have proposed the Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act, which would provide candidates, who demonstrate a reasonable level of public support, access to the airwaves if they are able to raise small-donor money which is matched by a communication voucher. Candidates who wish to advertise can then "buy" airtime on broadcast TV stations with those vouchers. No government mandates, no government censorship, and, most importantly, a reduction in pressure to raise money to buy airtime.
We strongly urge you to support legislation for a communication voucher system in the 110th Congress. The current broken system will only continue to deteriorate and must be repaired.
Candidates and others seeking to advertise on the broadcast airwaves are not to blame for the excesses of the current system. There are few means available for candidates to reach large numbers of voters. Buying television time for ads is a requirement for any serious campaign that seeks to be competitive in a senatorial or gubernatorial race, and even for a congressional race in a district within range of a medium-sized media market. Some estimates put the amount of money spent on TV ads — the consultants, pollsters, focus groups, production, and time buys — as requiring up to 60 percent of the money a candidate raises.
Unfortunately, there's really no other choice — candidates cannot rely on the TV stations to inform voters about the candidates or their position on issues. Voters rely primarily on television for their political information, yet the actual amount of this information available in newscasts is less than paltry.
A recent study by the Midwest News Index found that in the seven markets they studied, newscasts aired almost 4-1/2 minutes of paid political ads during a 30-minute broadcast, while only offering 1 minute 43 seconds of election news coverage. Moreover, local television political news about political races is overwhelmingly focused on national and statewide elections and characterized by stories on strategy, polling and the game of politics, with very little time devoted to substantive discussion of the issues.
The $2.25 billion spent on political ads in 2006 results from a system that is defended as a free market broadcast economy, even when such a thing doesn't exist in reality. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin, his predecessor Michael Powell, and their like-minded colleagues at the FCC claim that this $2.25 billion boon for TV stations is a sign of a healthy competitive market. We agree there is a competition going on here, but it is not a competition of ideas and instead is a competition of money and political consultants.
The real tragedy of this situation is that $2.25 billion is being spent to gain access to airwaves that are owned by the American people. Most people aren't aware of this simple fact: The television stations have exclusive and free use of a significant portion of the publicly-owned airwaves. The broadcasters' "payment" to the federal government for use of the public's airwaves is supposed to come in the form of a fulfillment of their public interest obligations. Unfortunately, those obligations simply are not being enforced by the FCC, and broadcasters are allowed to essentially define for themselves what those obligations are and how to fulfill them.
A communication voucher system like the one proposed in the Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act is a self-regulating structure that will not solve every problem with the political ads that turn off so many voters. But such a system would begin to return some sanity to a broken system that has clearly slipped its moorings.
Changing the way candidates get access to the public airwaves will strengthen our democracy by elevating the political dialogue in our country and should be high on the "to-do" list for the 110th Congress. We encourage you to support a communications voucher system in the upcoming session.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this proposal. If you interested in discussing more about the role of television in elections and the use of the publicly owned airwaves, please contact us.
Sincerely,
J. Gerald Hebert
Executive Director
Meredith McGehee
Policy Director |
