OPEN DEBATES WELCOMES CHANGES, CALLS FOR FURTHER DEBATE REFORM

Open Debates

Press Release
September 21, 2004

Contact: Chris Shaw (202) 628-9195

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In response to the unprecendented pressure exerted by Open Debates and its supporters, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) appears to have taken a small step in the right direction, but substantial reform is still urgently needed before the presidential debates live up to their potential as engaging and informative examples of democracy in action.

Due to Open Debates' work, for the first time in 16 years, the contract drafted by the Republican and Democratic campaigns - the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding - has been made public. Now, the American people can hold the major party candidates accountable for the sanitized and exclusionary debates they have unilaterally designed.

And for the first time in 12 years, due to Open Debates' work, there will be more than just one debate moderator asking questions. The CPD proposed moderators for the first time in its history, and the Kerry and Bush campaigns accepted those four moderators.

"We have sharply criticized the CPD for its lack of transparency, and for allowing the candidates to handpick moderators. As a result of our criticisms and pressure, the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding has been made public, and the CPD has selected the moderators for the first time in its history. However, the corporate-financed CPD is still a creature of the two major parties, and that makes it a fundamentally flawed organization. The CPD submits to the demands of the major party campaigns, which results in the exclusion of all third-party challengers and the manipulation of debate formats," said George Farah, executive director of Open Debates.

"Open Debates has achieved a definite victory. However, the CPD is a creation of the two major parties that allows them to unilaterally negotiate the terms of the debates, excluding popular third-party voices and engaging formats to the detriment of the public interest. Voter education forums are an important element of a sound democracy, but unfortunately, because the CPD is more concerned with the partisan interests of the two candidates than the public's interest in good information, it has denied the public access to the debates they deserve," said Larry Noble, former General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission and current executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.

"These debates have major format problems: Candidates are not allowed to question each other, real back-and-forth exchanges between the candidates are discouraged, and the town-hall debate format places extraordinary constrictions on the audience. The partisan CPD is responsible for the flaws in the debates such as these format deficiencies," said Christopher J. Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch.

"The consequences of the Commission on Presidential Debates' sponsorship have been largely manipulated and boring formats, exclusion of popular third-party candidates, avoidance of vital issues, and declining viewership. Although the debate reform movement has achieved a significant victory, we must redouble our efforts, in order to fully reform this sorry state of affairs," concluded Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy.

The Commission on Presidential Debates was created by and for the Republican and Democratic Parties. In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement "to take over the presidential debates" from the League of Women Voters, and fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the CPD. Fahrenkopf and Kirk still co-chair the CPD.