0 votes

Candidates should get free TV time, expert says

By William Hershey, Columbus Bureau 7:56 PM Saturday, August 27, 2011

COLUMBUS — Tim Pawlenty, a Republican who managed to get elected governor in Democrat-friendly Minnesota, already has said bye-bye to the presidential race.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas might as well say sayonara, for all the attention he gets from reporters. Others like former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum are in single digits in the polls and also not getting much attention.

This is all before a single vote has been cast in a real caucus or primary.

Dan Birdsong, a University of Dayton political scientist, doesn’t like the way the race for the White House is shaping up.

“What makes Michele Bachmann a top-tier candidate vs. Ron Paul ... or anybody else?” he asked.

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/election/candidates-s...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Of course,

Add this to the list of "rights". After all, why shouldn't radio and T.V. stations be mandated to give away their time if doctors are? Like Dr. Paul says, if something belongs to someone and you must take it to give to someone else, it can't be a right.

Good Article

Having corporate employees decide who is allowed to be my President is not reflective of a free society. There's no way around it. This years political process has started off in a very fascist manner.

The tides are changing!

Those corporate

employees are most likely in cahoots with the government, i.e. G.E.?

yes sir

I fully agree. Just take a look at the list of CFR members and you'll see that Corps/Banksters completely run the show.

The tides are changing!

i know

so you deliver another perfect excuse for the central government to intervene to the exact same corrupt people, everything else equal

and all of a sudden it will be used for the forces of good

good logic

btw it says equal time to candidates--it doesn't say what station--they can ban other stations from broadcasting campaign interviews because only government equal-time-certified stations can do that, it doesn't say what happens to qualify someone as a candidate--surely 10,000 people can't all get equal air time to run for one office. so with all the rent is too damn high parties applying for equal air time, who qualifies? how much bribe do i have to pay? vague excuse for huge government bureaucracy.. money is like water that will flow from any crack on the wall.. there is no way to stop it.. the only way would be to not store food behind bare walls.. you concentrate power to intervene in any manner in the election process to the government and the money will find its way in there, somehow. you end up with more corporate fascism, not less. if i could give concrete examples already on what will happen under that system, then corporations simply aren't creative enough.. but we've already seen that they're probably smarter than you

c'mon.. some of you have studied free market for how long..

You are right,, 10,000 could not. You also exaggerate.

Do we have 10,000 people running for President today? NO, of course not. Stop making up problems that don't exist, while we try to come up with answers to problems that do exist. What you are saying is similar to the mantra " what if Iran gets a nuke? They will wipe out Israel, the USA and all Christians". Hysteria.

To answer your last comment, I do have a way to take the corporate, big money influence out of the elections. It would involve the media giving free air-time to all candidates at all levels of government. That is why I posted this article, because it is so nice to see people realize what is wrong and at least attempt to address the problems. You on the other hand, assume if someone is addressing the issues it will cause worse problems automatically, since of course no one is as intelligent as you. Please explain, why do you support Paul? He wants what is considered very radical change, aren't you scared things might not go the exact way you want them too?

...

The point is that a problem has been identified and brought out into the open to be discussed.

Reality is that the lack of coverage is simply a symptom of a greater problem. The collusion of Big Business and Government is the source. This is the birthplace of our crypto-fascist system and we need to confront it before it keeps growing.

The tides are changing!

People always see someone trying to help as wrong.

No one can cover every eventuality of wrongdoing in a short article, so some people always assume the worst. Thanks for defending sound, rational thinking. It is so rare to find people with open minds.

Slippery Slope

It would seem as though he is describing "The Fairness Doctrine" for politicians. If something like this were to happen then the actual "Fairness Doctrine" would not be far behind, along with "Net Neutrality".

No free publicity. No

No free publicity. No "public" financing. And no corporate, union or PAC money. Everything should come from individuals. No "anointed" candidates who get taxpayers' money to spread their lies. Make the candidates beat the bush getting small donations for individuals.

When corporations or unions donate to campaigns, they are attempting to buy a politician. I believe BRIBERY is the word.

This should be the only form of business tax break.

Every media outlet should cover candidates equally, and receive a tax break to off-set the cost. Other than that, all political financing should come from individual donors. This was all candidates would get equal air time, and even if they were not backed by big money, their ideas would be heard and the public could choose a candidate for themselves.

I agree with your last statement about corporations and unions. There should be a limit on individual financing also, so billionaires cannot buy a race either.

This is not a well written article, but I basically agree with the analysis.

No.. as free marketeers put it best

if an idea is worth funding, private entities will fund it. oh, look what's happening now? this is what we're doing with the donations. our ideas are getting funded and volunteered. if everybody had free tv time, there is no guarantee of an elevation of message quality. in fact politics might even become more of a bread and circus--because getting famous is now free (well it's funded by taxpayers). when people notice a degradation in message, will there be a national election bureau now to pre-select candidates and make sure they are serious? so how much do i have to bribe that agency because air time is limited and has to be rationed?

so few people understand the market.. the less 'free' stuff from the government the better.. that includes charity and all the rest good-sounding creation you can come up with.. i like how the very people who at this moment benefit from this free market is now seeking to destroy it..

even i might not be totally accurate here.. because tv isn't even the medium of the future. all in all wrong and ideologically archaic article.