Like the weather, money in politics is something that everybody complains about, but nobody does anything to change. Maybe, like the weather, nobody can.
But here’s a modest proposal with a suggestion of something that might at least help a little.
Decades ago, in a clear demonstration of who really runs this country, the Supreme Court declared that political contributions are the equivalent of free speech and thereby protected by the First Amendment. And if that wasn’t enough to tip the scales of power toward the wealthy, the Court later held that corporate contributions are enough like individual contributions to allow them to be similarly cloaked with Constitutional protection. We are stuck with those legal atrocities – holdings that have made sure that a politician’s strength is measured not by the validity of his or her ideas but by the size of their campaign funds.
So, how can we do something to try to limit this corrupting fund-raising advantage? How about cutting down on what the money is needed for? How about eliminating one of the most expensive parts of a campaign?
It is estimated that ahead of major/midterm election cycles about $5.6 billion dollars is spent on television political ads. Throw in about $273 million more on the radio, and, as has often been said, “pretty soon you’re talkin’ serious money.” It is the need for that money that contaminates our political system, bestows a disproportionate amount of power on the ridiculously prosperous, and reduces an election to a simple money collection contest.
So, how to cut back on that need? Here’s my idea. How about we have the FCC issue all broadcast licenses on the condition that they provide a certain percentage of their airtime without cost to political candidates. This would instantly reduce the need for raising the billions of dollars that are now required for candidates to buy that time.
I suppose that others have suggested this in the past. But, given the explosion of wealth to the Musks of this world, maybe it’s time to reconsider it.
Obviously, this proposal comes with a litany of problems. Let’s look at those problems. All have solutions.
First is the idea that such a rule would restrict free speech and violate the First Amendment. This is the first reaction by a lot of people when they hear this proposal. They figure that in imposing this rule, the FCC is controlling speech. But once examined, it becomes clear that this is not the case. By making broadcast space more available to candidates, the government would not be limiting political speech. It would be expanding it.
Where previously, those who didn’t have the bank balances sufficient to reach the public as effectively as did the well-heeled, this proposal will eliminate that inequity.
There could be law review articles written on this topic with citations and pages of political theory. In no way do I want to subject you to anything as dull as that. But the legal justification for my suggestion doesn’t have to be that convoluted. Let me just summarize it this way.
The Supreme Court decided a case in 1969 called, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC. At issue there was “The Fairness Doctrine” – the FCC rule that required broadcasters to give fair coverage to both sides of public issues. That rule was challenged as a violation of the First Amendment. The Court rejected that challenge. It said that the First Amendment protects the rights of the viewing and listening public, not by the broadcasters. The interest protected is the ability of the public to obtain information. So, the Court decided that the Fairness Doctrine was Constitutional. The Fairness Doctrine was later done away with by the FCC, but not because of any constitutional problem. It was because as time went on, more informational broadcast sources where available and the Agency simply felt that the rule was no longer necessary. The Red Lion case remains good law and supports my proposed rule. The rule would serve the best interest of the viewing and listening public just like the Fairness Doctrine once did.
Another criticism of the rule would be that people would be flooded with political ads that they already see too many of now. No one doubts that political ads during the campaign season are ubiquitous. This proposal, though, rather than making that situation worse, may, indeed, make it better.
My proposal does not suggest free ads for everybody at any time. That would be crazy (I’ve had my share of crazy ideas, but this is not one of them). I suggest, rather, that the rule require each broadcast licensee to set aside only a limited percentage of its time for the free ads. Candidates could still buy other time if they wanted to. But another facet of my proposal is that all the political ads include a reference to whether or not they are being provided for free or are being paid for. Under these conditions, people would be aware of which candidates have gone out of their way to pay for even more bothersome messages than they already have been able to provide for free. This might turn voters off, become counter-productive for those money-spending candidates, and cause them to cut down on their bullshit.
Finally, there is the problem of limiting the number of candidates. If anybody could just insist on being given free time to blast their nonsense to us, that would hardly be a “consummation devoutly to be wished” (a reference to Shakespeare ain’t ever a bad thing). After all, we now have to listen to our President babble on with his nonsense often enough. So, in order to qualify for the free time, the new rule would impose the same standards as are now in place for other political purposes. Only those candidates who obtain the number of signatures that their jurisdiction requires to be on the ballot would be able to obtain the free time.
O.K. So I’ve solved that one. Now I can work on the weather.
