Free TV time for candidates? - arguments for free television time for candidates

AGAINST

If campaign finance reform is the answer, what is the question? That's the current debate, and there are those who think they have it all figured out: mandate more free television airtime for candidates.

Conventional wisdom holds that the cost of communicating has risen so dramatically that candidates are forced to raise huge sums of money just to remain competitive. Give politicians more free TV time, costs will drop, and presto!... the campaign finance system will be reformed!

As usual, the conventional wisdom is fiat wrong. Just ask Dwight Morris, the former Los Angeles Times reporter who now runs the Campaign Study Group. Morris studied more than 1,400 House and Senate races waged between '90 and '94. His conclusion: "despite a mountain of readily available evidence to the contrary, most journalists and Sunday morning talking heads desperately cling to the notion that television advertising is the primary culprit behind ever-rising campaign costs." Journalists, said Morris, "have been misleading the public for years."

The cost of individual TV ads is not the reason why campaign costs have soared. Candidates, through their consultants, are simply buying more time each year - three times as much as was purchased 10 years ago - in an effort to "carpet bomb" the electorate with more attack ads.

Broadcasters would like to see the level of political discourse enhanced, as evidenced by the thousands of hours of free time each election season in the form of news coverage, candidate profiles, public affairs programming and debates. That's the type of coverage valued by the American people, rather than a federally-mandated free time plan that would simply enable politicians to double up on negative attack ads.

Legitimate campaign coverage - the kind of free time that is freely given by broadcasters - is indeed what voters desire. Opinion Research Corp. polled voters in April on behalf of PROMAX and asked what TV format provided the most valuable candidate information. The results: 36% chose debates; 30% chose newscasts; 17% chose public affairs and interview programs; 6% chose political advertising and 11% had no comment/no response.

In other words, 83 percent of respondents said they received their most valuable information from free airtime already donated by broadcasters. Moreover, 61 percent of those surveyed opposed giving politicians free airtime on top of existing paid advertising.

Broadcasters have a great tradition of voluntarily offering free time for debates. The dirty little secret is that politicians have an equally long tradition of rejecting those offers.

Examples:

* WRC-TV in Washington, D.C. went to great lengths to schedule an Oct. 29 Virginia gubernatorial debate between major candidates. The 30-minute, commercial-free debate would have aired on the NBC affiliate at 7:30 p.m. a week before the election. One of the major candidates declined the offer, even after contending he could not buy all the ad time he was seeking.

* As reported in National Journal, Wisconsin Broadcasting Association President John Laabs "routinely sponsors senatorial and gubernatorial debates." Last year, Laabs went a step further, orchestrating a multi-state debate between the GOP presidential hopefuls on the eve of Wisconsin's March 12 primary. Primaries were slated all over the country that month, so Laabs won the cooperation of broadcast associations in 12 other states, with dozens of television stations agreeing to run the program live. The value of the debate time was in the millions of dollars. But there was a catch: the candidates never showed."

* President Clinton, a free time advocate, along with Senator Dole, each declined 30 minutes of free time offered on election eve in '96 by the Fox network. There were no strings attached, no moderators and no spin doctors. Yet the no-cost offered time was rejected.

Let's also note that federal law already requires TV stations to provide candidates "lowest unit rate" advertising that is equivalent to about a 30 percent discount. That break translates into millions in savings for candidates in each election.

Advocates of federally-mandated free time argue that since broadcasters use the public airwaves, the public would benefit by defraying the cost of campaigning. But FCC member Rachelle Chong parries that argument quite succinctly. "If you follow this line of reasoning," says Chong, "maybe we should ask airlines to give free airplane seats to political candidates - airlines use the public airways.... too!"

Finally, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) makes the valid point that a free airtime mandate is unconstitutional in that it violates the Fifth Amendment standard on taking property without due process of law.

Our system of community-based broadcasting - founded on a commitment to localism and the First Amendment continues to serve audiences and voters across the country. The public makes clear it values debates, candidate profiles and public affairs programs most, and more political ads least. Broadcasters are explicitly fulfilling the public's desire.

Edward O. Fritts is president and CEO, National Association of Broadcasters

COPYRIGHT 1997 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group