The wealthy have so much clout mostly because campaigns cost so much. Campaigns cost so much mostly because television ads cost so much. Since we own the broadcast spectrum, perhaps we should quit leasing it out so freely and cheaply.
Suppose leases were let with conditions that included free and abundant advertising time to the candidates? Criteria would be needed for defining eligible candidates and the campaign season. Each candidate could be limited to equal ad time. They could be prohibited from buying more broadcast time for airing extra ads. Yes, SCOTUS decided money was free speech, and to that end candidates could spend all they wish on their allotted ads. Issue ads would need controls to preclude their use as campaign ad substitutes. Perhaps simply prohibit broadcasting all non-campaign ads except those explicitly selling a product. That would mean losing public service ads, but that seems a lesser loss than our democracy.
The Fairness Doctrine would also need resurrecting. Otherwise, with different channels restrictively broadcasting tendentiously, viewers would see and hear propaganda megaphones that shout over the ads. Diversity of positions needs coverage on each channel, and the broadcast channels need more diversified ownership. No entity should monopolize any regional broadcast market, nor should any entity own a large fraction of the national market.
The wealthy have so much clout mostly because campaigns cost so much. Campaigns cost so much mostly because television ads cost so much. Since we own the broadcast spectrum, perhaps we should quit leasing it out so freely and cheaply.
Suppose leases were let with conditions that included free and abundant advertising time to the candidates? Criteria would be needed for defining eligible candidates and the campaign season. Each candidate could be limited to equal ad time. They could be prohibited from buying more broadcast time for airing extra ads. Yes, SCOTUS decided money was free speech, and to that end candidates could spend all they wish on their allotted ads. Issue ads would need controls to preclude their use as campaign ad substitutes. Perhaps simply prohibit broadcasting all non-campaign ads except those explicitly selling a product. That would mean losing public service ads, but that seems a lesser loss than our democracy.
The Fairness Doctrine would also need resurrecting. Otherwise, with different channels restrictively broadcasting tendentiously, viewers would see and hear propaganda megaphones that shout over the ads. Diversity of positions needs coverage on each channel, and the broadcast channels need more diversified ownership. No entity should monopolize any regional broadcast market, nor should any entity own a large fraction of the national market.