The Bipartisan Undermining of Democracy

East Valley Tribune
By Jeff Milchen
Monday, November 13, 2003

"We have no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people," proclaimed the League of Women Voters in 1988. With that unusually blunt announcement, the League withdrew from sponsoring the nationally-televised presidential debates that it had produced since 1976. The League's statement explained that those events no longer could serve the public interest due to Democratic and Republican candidates' pressure to turn them into staged and scripted performances.

But while the League's integrity precluded it from colluding to undermine democracy, Arizona State University President Michael Crow and Mayor Giuliano apparently have no such qualms. They announced last week that ASU would host a presidential “debate” staged by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) next October, but “joint appearances between nominees of the two major political parties" is a more accurate label. The CPD itself described the events as such before recognizing the need to feign non-partisanship.

ASU should not sacrifice its credibility by hosting these partisan and anti-democratic events.

The CPD is a non-profit corporation created and controlled exclusively by the Democratic and Republican parties, and since they took over that 1988 debate, those parties have instituted absolute control over format, questioners and participants.

Televised presidential debates are the single most influential forum for voters and offer a rare opportunity to hear candidates' ideas in more than sound bites, yet the CPD effectively decides the topics and who participates--with no public accountability.

For 2004, the CPD has decreed that candidates outside of its duopoly must have “at least 15% of the national electorate” intending to vote for them. That arbitrary and absurdly high threshold is three times the federal standard to qualify for public financing and would have excluded every independent or “third party” candidate in televised debate history, with the possible exception of John Anderson (now a vocal critic of the CPD) in 1980. Though he ran as an independent, Anderson was an incumbent Republican congressman with 20 years in office--yet he polled only 13%-18% just prior to the debates.

The only non-major party candidate to debate under the CPD's reign was Ross Perot in 1992. Though he polled just 7%-9% immediately prior to the debate, Perot was invited to debate because both Bill Clinton and George Bush believed they'd benefit from his presence. The debates were the most watched in history and national voter turnout increased by a stunning 12 million from 1988. Perot captured 19% of the popular vote, qualifying him for public funding in 1996.

Perot's populist critique of federal deficits and corporate "free trade" added vitality to the debates, yet the major parties--acting through their CPD front--excluded him from debating in 1996. Excluding Perot as "unelectable" probably pleased the CPD's corporate funders, but made a mockery of the debate process. Perot received $29 million in public money, but the dominant parties were able to keep the public from hearing him debate.

Of course, the power to arbitrarily ignore a candidate makes the “unelectable” label self-fulfilling.

Without Perot's presence, about half as many Americans watched the debates in 1996—an all time ratings low until the 2000 Bush/Gore snooze-fests, with their stiflingly narrow range of discussion, sunk lower still.

Jesse Ventura's election as Governor of Minnesota in 1998 offers more compelling evidence of the need include serious third party candidates in debates. As a Reform Party candidate, Ventura polled at just 10% before participating in five televised debates, but went on to win once his views were heard.

The major parties correctly claim that limiting the number of presidential debate participants is necessary, but no one calls for every candidate to have a turn at the microphone. Simply limiting participation to candidates with a mathematical chance to win immediately drops the field to a handful.

An unaccountable private body has no place controlling a vital part of our democratic process and we must replace the CPD with a non-partisan entity that will nourish democracy. Thankfully, a Citizens' Debate Commission soon will emerge to serve that function.

Participating in the CPD's fraud would directly oppose the values of open and honest debate that higher education should represent, as well as misappropriate taxpayer funds for partisan events. ASU should demonstrate the same integrity as the League of Women Voters by refusing to participate in defrauding the voters of America and instead offer its facilities to host a genuine debate.

Jeff Milchen (jeff@reclaimdemocracy.org ) is the director of ReclaimDemocracy.org