Campaign Reform - Two Proposals

By Jan Louis Bergeron

Discusses reducing the cost of campaigning in California without spending taxpayer money and why only people should be allowed to make political contributions.

We all know the corrupting influence big money has on our political system. The need for candidates to raise obscene amounts of money is driven by the perceived need to advertise in the mass media - radio and TV.

In November 1999, a Green Party candidate for Modesto city council won against all adds, spending only about $1500. He won by campaigning the old fashioned way, going door to door to talk to people. But for offices that cover an area larger than a city council district, mass media advertising is almost essential to win, especially when you know that the incumbent will be doing it.

So, the primary way to take big money out of campaigns and to make the campaign playing field more level is to reduce the cost of radio and TV exposure. We can do that in California very simply.

Doing business in California as a corporation or other artificial business entity is a privilege granted to businesses by the people of California through our government. We can attach to that privileged any conditions we see fit.

As a condition of keeping their corporate status in California, every local TV and radio station, broadcast or cable, should be required to provide access to its carrier signal and equipment and facilities to access that signal, for a specified amount of time per week, including prime time, during defined campaign seasons, to all ballot qualified candidates for offices included in the station's primary market. They must also provide access to neutral, independent organizations like the League of Women Voters to run candidate forums and debates.

Also, during defined campaign seasons, we should require every radio and TV station to provide in a timely manner to every ballot qualified candidate for a given public office, time in comparable increments and time slots to the time provided, paid or free, to any candidate for that office, and to any individual, committee or group commenting on or supporting or opposing a candidate. Incumbents shall be considered candidates for re-election until they declare otherwise.

This might inhibit radio and TV stations from selling political ad time because of the expense of providing comparable time to other candidates. This in turn might induce them to provide more organized times to candidates, like forums and debates. Both would be improvements.

This is not government dictating the content of broadcasting, but of requiring shared access to public resources for the public purpose of political discourse and debate.

The situation we have now is analogous to a public freeway system, portions of which have been given to corporations to manage. They put up toll booths and can charge as much as drivers are willing to pay. But, if they don't like the model or color of your car, or your bumper sticker, they can keep you off of what is effectively their road, no matter how much you're willing to pay.

Radio and TV corporations that fail to comply with public access requirements can be fined and have their corporate status in California suspended or revoked. There are precedents for this. The California Franchise Tax Board, which administers the state's income tax laws, can suspend a corporation for failure to file required forms or pay balances due. The Secretary of State's office can fine and suspend corporations for failure to file required forms.

It is my understanding that a business that has had its corporate status suspended cannot conduct business as a corporation in California: it can't defend itself in California courts, can't enforce contracts in California, and it's name may be taken by another business.

Tax exempt radio and TV stations can be required to meet the public access requirement as a condition of keeping their tax exempt status in California.

Eliminate Corporate Contributions

A rule for political contributions should be, "if you can't vote, you can't contribute." The only exception I would make is for minors, who will be eligible to vote when they get older.

Every U.S. resident has full and equal rights to political free speech and association. Each of us can spend as much of our own money on as much political speech as we can afford to. Giving artificial business entities (corporations) political speech rights has two harmful effects on democratic speech.

1) It injects a multitude of corporate voices into the political debate, diluting the power of the voices of people. Considering that many corporations have way more money than most people do, these corporate voices tend to drown out those of ordinary persons.

2) Every person involved with a corporation, from the ceo to the janitor, has the same political speech rights as every other person not involved in the corporation. Giving the corporation political speech rights separate from the rights of the persons involved with the corporation increases and amplifies the power of the small group of people who actually control the speech of the corporation.

There can be no justification to the assertion that a corporation is a person separate from the persons involved with it. The fact is that a small group of people control the speech rights and power of the corporation. Granting these few people corporate speech rights and power in addition to their personal speech rights and power clearly is undemocratic, and possibly a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Surely it discriminates against those of us who do not have control over corporate resources.