CPD MUST BE REPLACED AS SPONSOR OF 2008 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

January 15, 2008

The 2008 election season is in full swing, and though the Republican and Democratic nominees have yet to be chosen and possible third party candidacies have yet to be announced, the general election presidential debates are fast approaching. 

Unremarkably, in November 2007, the CPD announced that it will sponsor four presidential debates in September and October.  However, two things were remarkable about that announcement.  First, in response to our criticism of its restrictive formats that inhibit actual debate, the CPD declared that for the first time ever, participants would ask each other questions during the forums.  Such improvements in format should be applauded.

Second, in response to our claim that the CPD functions as a tool of the Republican and Democratic campaigns, the CPD announced that it would no longer allow the major party nominees to dictate how the debates were going to be structured.  “The candidates aren’t going to dictate to us anymore,” said Frank Fahrenkopf, co-chair of the CPD and the nation’s top gambling lobbyist. This one is hard to believe.  The CPD exists for the exclusive purpose of hosting presidential debates that are controlled by the Republican and Democratic campaigns – that is why they seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters in 1988; that is why they have implemented secret contracts jointly drafted by the major party campaigns; that is why they design candidate selection criteria to exclude all third party challengers; and that is why the organization has been run by former chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties for the last 20 years.

In fact, we are already seeing evidence that the CPD will continue to do the Republican and Democratic parties’ bidding.  First and foremost, the CPD has re-issued candidate selection criteria that no third-party candidate has ever met since the inception of televised presidential debates – that a candidate must reach 15 percent in pre-debate polls to qualify for any of the forums.  This antidemocratic criterion prevents the inclusion of candidates that most Americans want to see, and it is three times higher than the threshold candidates must reach to qualify for taxpayers’ funds.  In other words, taxpayers can subsidize the campaigns of candidates that they can’t watch debate. 

Moreover, the CPD rejected New Orleans as a presidential debate site, despite evidence that the city had more-than-adequate facilities and widespread popular support.  Unconfirmed allegations abound that the CPD struck the following deal with the RNC: the CPD agreed not to host a debate in New Orleans, where voters would be reminded of Bush’s incompetence, and the RNC agreed to permit the hosting of a debate in New York City. 

Lastly, for the fourth consecutive year, the CPD chose Washington University in St. Louis as a debate site, in large part because Anheuser Busch will foot the bill. In turn, Anheuser Busch will transform the debate area into a corporate carnival, with scantily glad Busch-girls distributing pamphlets denouncing beer taxes and corporate executives rubbing elbows with campaign advisors at post-debate parties.

The debates are more than nine months away, it is already abundantly clear that the nation is in need of a new, genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor that will ensure our most sacred public forums serve the public interest.