TWO PARTY 'DEBATES' ARE 'GLORIFIED PRESS CONFERENCES,' REFORMERS SAY

The NewsStandard

Jessica Azulay
Thursday, September 30, 2004

The upcoming joint television appearances of presidential hopeful John Kerry and incumbent George W. Bush are being billed as "debates," and are thus widely perceived to be an opportunity for the public to hear candidates discuss and argue their viewpoints and policy proposals in a face-to-face encounter.

But pro-democracy activists say recent trends in the format, content and sponsorship have rendered presidential "debates" nothing more than "a series of glorified bipartisan news conferences." Not only that, but the events are carefully manicured by an entity under control of the major parties, which critics say is illegally operating outside of campaign finance laws and IRS regulations.

Formed in 1986 by the chairpersons of the Republican and Democratic National Committees, with the express purpose of wresting control of the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has sponsored the joint television appearances between the two major party candidates since 1988.

"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," said Rob Richie, executive director of the Center for Voting and Democracy, in a joint statement to the press by various pro-democracy organizations calling for major debate reform.

Chris Shaw, organizing director of Open Debates, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group working for debate reform, said that the Commission awards almost total control of the debate format and content to the candidates themselves instead of to the public. As a result, he said, the debates become events that serve the interests of the two parties, instead of serving the interest of the public.

This, said Shaw, along with the exclusion of third party candidates, means that important issues such as free trade, homelessness, police brutality, immigration, child poverty and hunger, lack of affordable housing will not be talked about. Nor will corporate power or meaningful election reform be discussed, Shaw added.

According to Open Debates, the number of issues discussed has been declining as the rate of agreement between the major parties has skyrocketed.

Reform groups also take issue with various aspects of this year's "Memoranda of Understanding," a strict agreement between the Presidential Debate Commission and the Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards campaigns that will govern all of this year's upcoming joint television appearances. The "Memoranda" includes agreements on everything from who will moderate the discussions and how long each candidate will have to answer questions to the height of the podiums and the color of the backdrop.

"These debates have major format problems," stated Christopher J. Farrell, director of investigations and research at Judicial Watch, a nonprofit public interest law firm that litigates against government corruption. "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."

According to the "Memoranda" -- which is the first contract of its kind to be released to the public -- the candidates will not be allowed to directly question each other during the event. They are forbidden from bringing any notes, charts or other tools. And no candidate can publicly use any of the audio or video footage from the event in his campaign.

Response times will be kept to a minimum. Each question will only be discussed for a maximum of 4.5 minutes, including 2 minutes for the first candidate to answer, 1.5 minutes for the second to give a response, and 30 more seconds each at the discretion of the moderator.

As laid out in the joint agreement, the only event where audience participation will be allowed is during the "town hall" episode on October 8 in St. Louis. Even then, the audience will be handpicked by the Gallup Organization and must consist of an equal number of "soft" supporters of each candidacy. Questions from the audience must be submitted ahead of time and the moderator will pick which will be asked. If an audience query strays from the previously approved question, the microphone will be cut off, in compliance with the "Memoranda." Audience members will not be permitted to ask follow up questions.

Also at issue is how the Commission obtains money to fund the debates. This year's events are to be sponsored by several corporations, including American, JetBlue and Continental Airlines, Anheuser-Busch Companies and the Discovery Channel. Critics of the corporate sponsorship system say that it not only gives companies access to candidates and journalists, but it is a way for companies to donate to both of the major candidates at once without any campaign finance regulation.

In response to what they see as the Commission on Presidential Debates' narrowly partisan interests and activities, several civic organizations have come together to form an alternative Citizens' Debates Commission. They are hoping to whip up enough public support to eventually take over the role as organizer of the presidential debates.

Shaw said that a legitimate debate commission should be representative of many points of view, which is why the Citizens' Debate Commission includes community and organizational leaders from across the political spectrum.

Shaw said that debates organized by the Citizens' Debate Commission would be forums designed for the purpose of voter education. "They would [include] candidate-to-candidate questioning and dialogue, adequate response times and rebuttals to all questions, and they would not be used by the candidates as a presentation of sound bites," he said.

Debates organized by the alternative Commission would include the voices of third party candidates, Shaw added. Currently, under the rules the Commission on Presidential Debates has set out, the only candidates who are eligible to participate in the televised events are those who have fifteen percent of the public's support as shown through various national public opinion polls.

But debate reformers believe that all viable candidates with some popular support should be included in discussions about vital issues affecting the public. Under guidelines proposed by the Citizens' Debate Commission, a candidate would have to be on ballots in enough states to win the presidency and would have to either register at five percent in national polls or obtain a majority in national polls asking voters which candidates they would like to see included in the debates.

In an effort to wrest control from the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Citizens' Commission sent invitations to all candidates eligible under its guidelines to participate in four alternative presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate this year. But the two major party candidates did not bite, in obedience of the terms of their joint agreement. According to the "Memoranda of Understanding," Bush, Kerry, Cheney and Edwards cannot "issue any challenges for additional debates, appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate, or accept any television or radio air time offers that involve a debate format or otherwise involve the simultaneous appearance of more than one candidate."

Shaw says that only with public pressure will the two major parties be forced to cede their present control over the debates.

Debate reformers are also hoping that the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service will step in and decertify the Commission on Presidential Debates. They have filed complaints with both agencies, alleging that the CPD is not non-partisan, but in fact is a bipartisan organization working on behalf of the two major parties.

As a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates is not allowed to participate or intervene in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office as a major part of its programs. Since the Commission's reason for existence revolves entirely around two party events, critics believe it is violating its obligations to US tax law.

In its complaint to the IRS, Open Debates said that rather than engaging in nonpartisan voter education, the Commission on Presidential Debates uses its tax-exempt status "to pose as a nonpartisan debate sponsor, to covertly execute the join demands of the Republican and Democratic nominees concerning the presidential debates and to shield the Republican and Democratic nominees from public criticism."

Open Debates also accuses the Commission on Presidential Debates of using its status "to raise millions of dollars in tax deductible corporate contributions that are used for partisan purposes."

The IRS complaint remains pending, but in August a US District Court judge found that the Commission on Presidential Debates might have acted in an illegally partisan manner during the 2000 debates when it barred all third party candidates from so much as attending the events as audience members. Judge Henry Kennedy, Jr. ordered the FEC to open an investigation into the matter.

Notwithstanding their failure to take control of the debates this year, debate reformers did claim two small victories.

For the first time in sixteen years, the "Memoranda of Understanding" for the 2004 debates was released to the public. Reformers are also happy that for the first time since the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed, the moderator will rotate from event to event. This year, each episode will feature a different moderator, providing for a format that will resemble a press conference, except all questions will be filtered by a single member of the media.

"Open Debates has achieved a definite victory, said Larry Noble, director of the Center for Responsive Politics, nonprofit research group that tracks the effects of money on public policy. "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."