COALITION ASKS COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES TO ELIMINATE CORPORATE MONEY

Open Debates
Press Release

September 29, 2004

Contact: Chris Shaw (202) 628-9195

Open Debates and opponents of corporate sponsorship of the presidential debates sent letters today to the Commission on Presidential Debates' (CPD) Board of Directors, stating that the presidential debates should be civic -- not marketing -- events.

The CPD recently announced its 2004 sponsors, including Anheuser-Busch, American Airlines, and JetBlue.

Following is the text of the letter:

Dear CPD Directors:

The corporate sponsorship of presidential debates, as established by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), is incompatible with the concept of fair debate. The purpose of presidential debates is voter education, not to promote corporations' political agendas or products, or to boost their sagging public relations images.

Despite this fact, in 1992 Philip Morris won the right to hang a banner that was visible during post-debate interviews in return for paying the CPD $250,000. In 2000, Anheuser-Busch gave $550,000, and then set up informational booths in the debate area that distributed pamphlets critical of beer taxes.

This election season a corporation can get its name on press kits, signs, and banners in return for $2 million. Opportunities for advertising "recognition" are also available for those who donate only $50,000. The crassness of this situation is not surprising, because CPD co-chair Frank Fahrenkopf as president of the American Gaming Association is the nation's leading gambling lobbyist. When asked if there was anything wrong with corporate sponsorship of the debates, he said, "Boy, you are talking to really the wrong guy. I'm a guy who represents the gambling industry."

There are advantages from the corporate viewpoint in giving money to sponsor debates. These donations simultaneously garner favor with both the Democratic and Republican parties and candidates, and, unlike PAC and "soft money" donations, they are tax-deductible. Corporations should not be able to buy influence at these important political forums.

Presidential debates ought to be civic-not marketing-events. At best, corporate funding and advertising serves as an undesirable distraction, and detracts from the gravity of the event at hand. Unfortunately, the CPD has been institutionalizing them as corporate events since it was founded by the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee in 1987.

We ask that you eliminate corporate money from the presidential debates.

The American public deserves presidential debates that are not for sale to corporations with legislative and political agendas pending before Congress and the White House.

Sincerely,

John C. Berg, Professor of Government, Suffolk University;

Carl Bogus, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law;

Charles Derber, Professor of Sociology, Boston College;

George Farah, author of "No Debate";

Tom Gerety, Executive Director and Brennan Center for Justice Professor, NYU School of Law;

Jon Hanson, Professor of Law, Harvard University;

David Kairys, Professor of Law, Temple University;

Sidney Kraus, Professor Emeritus of Communication, Cleveland State University;

Robert McChesney, Research Professor in the Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;

Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media Ecology, New York University;

Kathryn Mulvey, Executive Director, Infact;

Gene Nichol, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina;

Jamin Raskin, Professor of Law, American University;

Douglas Rushkoff, author;

Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert;

Chris Shaw, Organizing Director, Open Debates.