Corporate Sponsorship

Since the CPD seized control of the presidential debates in 1988, the debates have been primarily funded by corporate contributions. Multinational corporations with regulatory interests before Congress have donated millions of dollars in contributions to the CPD. Tobacco giant Phillip Morris was a major sponsor in 1992 and 1996. Anheuser-Busch has sponsored presidential debates in its hometown of St. Louis in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. 

The CPD has turned the presidential debates into yet another opportunity for special interests to influence the political process via financial contributions. By donating to the CPD, corporations are able to make tax-deductible contributions that simultaneously benefit both major parties. As a result, corporations perceive donations to the bipartisan CPD to be bipartisan political contributions.  By contrast, donations to the nonpartisan League of Women Voters were primarily considered civic charity. Nancy Neuman, former president of the League of Women Voters, explained:

One of the big differences between us and the commission was that the commission could easily raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions. They did it very quickly in 1988. Even though I would go to some corporations, I would be lucky to get $5,000. Why? Because under the commission's sponsorship, this is another soft-money deal. It is a way to show your support for the parties because, of course, it is a bipartisan commission and a bipartisan contribution. There was nothing in it for corporations when they made a contribution to the League. Not a quid pro quo. That's not the case with the commission.

Under the auspices of the CPD, debate sites have become corporate carnivals, where sponsoring corporations vigorously market their products. In 1992, after providing some $250,000 in contributions to the CPD, cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris won the right to hang a large banner that was visible during post-debate interviews. For the third 2000 presidential debate, Anheuser-Busch, which had contributed $550,000 to the CPD, set up several information booths to distribute glossy pamphlets denouncing "unfair" beer taxes and calling on the government to "avoid interfering" with beer drinking. Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank described the first 2000 presidential debate:

The whole campus is closed -- (ostensibly) to thwart terrorists, more likely to thwart Nader and Buchanan. Nader gets kicked out of the debate audience, even though he got himself a ticket from a student. He's threatening lawsuits. But I'm not worried about such things. I am inside the debate area, and I am delighted to find an Anheuser Busch refreshment tent, where there is beer flowing, snacks, Budweiser girls in red sweaters, the baseball playoffs on television, ping pong and fusbol.

That the CPD has been able to raise millions of dollars in corporate contributions is not surprising.  Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, who co-chair and control the CPD, are registered lobbyists for multinational corporations.  Kirk has collected $120,000 for lobbying on behalf of Hoechst Marion Roussel, a German pharmaceutical company.  Fahrenkopf earns approximately $900,000 a year as the chief lobbyist for the nation's $54-billion gambling industry.  As president of the American Gaming Association, Fahrenkopf directs enormous financial contributions to major party candidates and saturates the media with "expert" testimony extolling gambling's "many benefits." "We're not going to apologize for trying to influence political elections," said Fahrenkopf.

Kirk and Fahrenkopf's lobbying practices demonstrate a willingness to protect corporate interests at the expense of voters' interests. It shouldn't come as a surprise, then, that the co-chairs of the CPD are willing to protect major party interests at the expense of voters' interests.