Why don't we give free air time to Presidential Candidates?

[Sandpiper]

Is there really any compelling reason as to why we shouldn't?

I can't think of a more effective way of negating the influence of big money in Presidential campaigns than by giving each candidate an equal amount of free air time.

But alas, it will never happen because big money would never go for anything that would reduce their influence over elected officials.

[mhr]

1. Corporate America - One Word - Greed - To Play You Have To Pay

America is only for people with money!

Without money you do not exist or count in this society.

This society is a society of money worshipers pure and simple.

'nuff said!

[aquart]

2. Corporate America is using public airwaves.

The equal time rule was abolished. Stupidly.

[saracat]

3. Hmmmm

Why are they always saying the airwaves belong to the public? We need to march for equal time.That would be the most signifigant campaign reform of all!

[izzie]

5. I bet a good % of profits are from the races.

We may as well just mail in our money to who we want, to them. Lets for get the middle men.

[Book Lover]

13. I would march for that!

Anyone else old enough to remember the phrase, "Information Wants to be Free" ?

[SheilaT]

4. There used to be

a "Fairness Doctrine" which required broadcast stations to give equal time to political candidates, but in the 1980's it ended. Here's a link to one article about it: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

A google search of "Fairness Doctrine" will turn up many hits and you can read as many as seem interesting to you.

[trof]

6. What ARE ya? Sum kinda commonist?

Not only do politicians have to pay for airtime, I am told they pay a higher rate than Wal-Mart and McDonald's.

Go figure.

[Fla_Democrat]

7. Because there are only 24 hours in a day

And since air time is the only thing a radio/television station has to sell to pay the bills.... :think:

Why don't we give free newspaper advertising to Presidential Candidates? A newspaper can always print more pages, and if need be, raise the cost per paper to offset the extra burden on their bottom line. :shrug:

Why don't they force people to volunteer 10 hours, between September 1st and November 5th, every two years, with a campaign? It would be a way to get the average person more involved with politics.

[Sandpiper]

8. Thank you for the stupid, kneejerk response

Why don't we give free newspaper advertising to Presidential Candidates?

Because unlike print media, broadcast media is regulated by a governmental entity called the Federal Communications Commission. Once upon a time, the airwaves were considered public domain, and the purpose of the FCC was to ensure that they were used in the public interest.

And since air time is the only thing a radio/television station has to sell to pay the bills

And I know this might offend your capitalist sensibilities, but the public's right to know who the candidates are who running for the highest office in the land is infinitely more important than MacDonald's right to sell Big Macs.

Unfortunately for all us, the FCC was hijacked in the 1980s by people like yourself who thought that promoting consumerism was greatest public good.

So to hell with something as trivial as presidential campaigns. Do what's important, Obey your thirst, drink Sprite, and go have some Dippin' Dots cause they're crazy crazy cool.

[Fla_Democrat]

10. Taxicabs

Oh, and you are welcome.
More on taxi's after this...

Because unlike print media, broadcast media is regulated by a governmental entity called the Federal Communications Commission. Once upon a time, the airwaves were considered public domain, and the purpose of the FCC was to ensure that they were used in the public interest.

Yea, I know. Mainly because radio and television were invented after the 1st amendment was written. I would find it hard to believe that if our founding fathers could conceive of 'air waves', they would have exempted them from being free of government interference. In fact, I would think that since a community is served by far fewer print media, than broadcast, they would carry more weight.


And I know this might offend your capitalist sensibilities, but the public's right to know who the candidates are who running for the highest office in the land is infinitely more important than MacDonald's right to sell Big Macs.

No, it doesn't offend my capitalist sensibilities. It more offends my sense of logic. I wonder, if you want 'free time' given to candidates, would you then object if candidates turned around and bought more time? Should every one be given their 15 min, and after that, their are on their own? "Here you go, Mr. Noshot, chances are you wont get 100 votes nationally, but make your case, and see if any one wants to donate to your cause."

Last I checked, MacDonald's still had to buy their advertising, I don't recall anyone saying that they should get it for free. If Micky D's buys and runs an ad, does that give Burger King, or Rally's right to demand equal time?

If stations are forced to provide free air time, where is that revenue made up? Who should be given the free time? The top 2, 3, 4, 5? In Florida, in 2000, there were 12 candidates for the 'highest office in the land'. http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/index.asp

Bush / Cheney(REP)
Gore / Lieberman(DEM)
Browne / Olivier(LIB)
Nader / LaDuke(GRE)
Harris / Trowe(SWP)
Hagelin / Goldhaber(LAW)
Buchanan / Foster(REF)
McReynolds / Hollis(SPF)
Phillips / Frazier(CPF)
Moorehead / La Riva(WWP)
Chote / Lancaster(WRI)
McCarthy / Beifus(WRI)

How many of those 12, are deserving the right to tell the voters about themselves? Who makes that call? What of the California recall, for the highest office in the state? Don't they deserve the right to free air time? The top 100, 200? After all, there's over 34 million people in that state, the election affects a lot of people's lives.


Unfortunately for all us, the FCC was hijacked in the 1980s by people like yourself who thought that promoting consumerism was greatest public good.

Maybe, maybe not. I prefer to think that the press refers to more than the printed word. Go figure.


So to hell with something as trivial as presidential campaigns. Do what's important, Obey your thirst, drink Sprite, and go have some Dippin' Dots cause they're crazy crazy cool.

Yes, because we all know, that for the ONLY way for a candidate to get his message out, is by having the police arm of the government to give him the chance, for free.

Now, for taxis.

Since taxi's are licensed, and operate over public roadways, does it not serve the public good if we require them to donate a small percentage of their trips for the public? If, say for example, a person was ill, and needed a trip to the hospital, but not sick enough to require a ambulance and a EMT, why not require the closest hack to pick up that person and carry them to the nearest hospital? For Free, of course.

Same principle, way I see it. The driver pays for his own gas, insurance, vehicle maintenance, yet used public road ways to make his money. He is licensed by the DBR, or the equivalent, and as such, is subject to the regulations put forth by the government body.

[Sandpiper]

12. Red Herring served up hot and fresh

Since taxi's are licensed, and operate over public roadways, does it not serve the public good if we require them to donate a small percentage of their trips for the public? If, say for example, a person was ill, and needed a trip to the hospital, but not sick enough to require a ambulance and a EMT, why not require the closest hack to pick up that person and carry them to the nearest hospital? For Free, of course.

Boy you sure got me with your dazzling logic, or, logical fallacy should I say.

Once you boil down all the hyperbole of your post, your complaints are more or less:

1) There are too many candidates, who decides who gets free air time and who doesn't.

This one is very easily overcome. Simply set a minimum percentage of the vote that has to be captured in order to be eligible. Yep, that would be really tough.

2) It's not fair that the broadcast media can't make a profit off our electoral process. They'll lose out on money.

I know, profits first. And gosh, that's nearly impossible to overcome too. I guess the stations would have to just bite the bullet and raise the rates on commercial advertising during the election cycle to offset any potential lost revenue. I'm sure they'd hate to do that.

Yes, because we all know, that for the ONLY way for a candidate to get his message out, is by having the police arm of the government to give him the chance, for free.

You're right, what's radio and television access compared to the power of the stump speech. :eyes:

Welcome to the 21st century.

[Fla_Democrat]

15. "I like to use analogies in my show...

.. That's where they compare things." Bill Engvall.


1) There are too many candidates, who decides who gets free air time and who doesn't.

This one is very easily overcome. Simply set a minimum percentage of the vote that has to be captured in order to be eligible. Yep, that would be really tough.


So, you are for denying the right of free speech to candidates that don't reach a certain level of support, then how will those candidates ever reach enough people to get that support. Sorry DK, Not enough votes, you are the weakest link, good bye.

2) It's not fair that the broadcast media can't make a profit off our electoral process. They'll lose out on money.

I know, profits first. And gosh, that's nearly impossible to overcome too. I guess the stations would have to just bite the bullet and raise the rates on commercial advertising during the election cycle to offset any potential lost revenue. I'm sure they'd hate to do that.

Do you work for free? When you wake up, go into work, and put in your time, do you expect to be paid? Then why should others just "bite the bullet". Oh, that's right, they would just pass the cost on to other commercial advertisers, you pointed that out. So, if on your way into work, you stop into a 7-11 to get a cup of coffee. The clerk behind the counter charges you $1.50 for a .99 mug. Well, it would have been .99 cent, but there was a police officer in earlier, and since it is important that they are awake and alert, he gave him a free cup, and well, he passed part of the price on to you. Good?


You're right, what's radio and television access compared to the power of the stump speech. :eyes:

Welcome to the 21st century.

Yes, it's a wonder anyone was ever elected before the 1959's.

However, I do note you missed one question, if you (in all your generosity) give free time to candidates, is that it? After, do you deny candidates the right to purchase advertising, with no other hoops to jump through?

[leftofthedial]

9. Because corporate interests

and America's ruling oligarchies maintain control of politicians (and thus the government) by requiring them to raise money (from those coprorations and oligarchies) in order to run for office.

It's like a reverse poll tax. You have to be a player in the big money game in order to run for office.

[Karenina]

11. The same reason

elections are held mostly on ONE work day.

[Touchdown]

14. They already do.

But only to Republican incumbents.:puke:

[0007]

16. That's for sure.