Forum Post: New way to achieve Campaign Finance Reform via OWS

I'm tired of media saying you have gripes but no solution. here's a quick summary of a solution that goes far beyond "wanting campaign finance reform" in bullet points:

The change: As a condition for the 4 major broadcasters tv spectrum, they provide free to qualified candidates tv airtime during campaign seasons.

background reasoning:

Barack/Biden raised >$650M for their 2008 campaign, 70% went to buy airtime.

Congress has to return too frequently to raise money rather than work on legislation.

In the dotcom boom, the value of wireless spectrum was apparent as digital tv conversion and other new available spectrum brought in high prices (87 auctions, $60 billion - wikipedia).

For the major stations to have access to the public airwaves, they should be required to make available public airtime for the purpose of public involvement and information during election times. Similar to the bbc, it would be non-partisan and serves the general public interest immune from corporate sponsorship.

Precedence exists - when cable tv was developed, fcc required an allocation for local independent channels to have access time. Also, something similar in tv already exists - Public Service Announcements (drunk driving kills, this is your brain on drugs etc). But we don't want airtime at 3am in the morning. Regular viewing timeslots are the requirement.

Rebuttle to claim "candidate debate had low viewership ratings": A candidate platform, be it a commercial spot or grouped debate needs to be available during prime time often for older (plain tv) viewers. Ratings are misleading as more often it is the last day before election when voters try to access candidate info to help them decide. Case in point, have you ever tried to access league of women voters, cal voters or gone that extra mile to see which of those judges you might pick, the night before an election when reviewing your sample ballot? youtube, hulu etc will then serve the replay mullifying the "dis-interest" ratings argument.

Rebuttle to claim "if we give equal dollar amount in airtime to each qualified candidate, then won't the rich still have an advantage?" No, meg wittman's CA governer run showed that too much oversaturation becomes a disadvantage.

What will be the effect of the change:

We take the money driven campaign finance/political influence out of the equation with MIRACULOUSLY little cost to the public. As a condition for use of the pubic airspace, the broadcast networks are required to offer units of airtime for public service. Presidental candidates, senators, govenors, congresspersons, school board, judgeships, city councelmen etc no longer need to concentrate time and effort to fundraising and resultant favoritism. We can take 70% of the cost out of political office campaigning - barack no longer needs to be friendly to wall street. Politicans can act more freely regarding foreign policy that might affect their fund raising ability. Congress won't have to rush off during breaks to raise money. The "Citizens united" ruling tended to pit corporation donations against union contributions. Though it should be overturned, much of the objction is muted when no cost airtime is made available.

why this is an important objective for OWs: besides offering a concrete example of improvement to the system at minimal cost, It only can work with grass roots effort. There is little chance cbs, nbc, abc, fox will promote such a revolutionary change when it comes at the cost to their wildly profitable election revenue stream. If there were one thing I could pick that would make a difference in the way this government is run, it would be the corruptive influence of money in politics. Campaign finance reform is the goal, and here is a method that goes far beyond the old style "1040 form donate $5 to finance public campaigns checkbox". It eliminates 70% of all fundraising and at no cost to the public (even that $5 is taken from something else in pool of collected taxes). It values the public airwaves appropriately in comparison to what recent wireless spectrum auctions brought in and demands the big 4 compensate the public commensurately.

how this idea came about: during the 2008 election, it was reported barack supporter's average contribution came to $200. everytime I saw one of his commercials run, I felt my money was being spent. I got a sense of how little the money bought when EVERY evening during any of the major broadcasters 6:30 news you see that "energytomorrow.org" commercial. one can get a real feel for how much of your gasoline or nat gas fuel purchase you have to chip in to get indoctrinated by one of their own commercials! It is essentially impossible to think political donations can match the insurmountable advertising war chest of industry.