Posted December 7, 2006 by Meredith McGehee

Election Costs Ad Up

In the 2006 elections, the nation’s television stations took in an estimated $2.25 billion for the seemingly endless television ads that besieged our households.  That’s obviously good news for television stations and the corporations who own them.

But is the current political advertising system good news for America?  In a word, no.  It’s a rotten system that needs to change.

What this heavy spending on TV ads really means is that politicians and their parties spent innumerable hours shaking every special-interest money tree they could think of just to raise money to communicate with the voters using the airwaves that voters own in the first place.  It’s a system which enriches broadcasters but diminishes our democracy. 

 Why should an individual aspiring to publicly elected office essentially be required to sell their soul to monied interests just so they can buy ads to reach voters on the publicly owned airwaves?  Why should voters have their television screens inundated from Labor Day to Election Day with 30- and 60-second ads from candidates, parties and independent groups, few of which actually present useful information and a growing number of which are so-called “contrast” (read “negative” or “attack”) ads?

 Let’s be clear.  The candidates themselves and others seeking to advertise on the broadcast airwaves are not to blame for the sordid nature of the current system.  After all, there are few means available for candidates to reach large numbers of voters.  Buying television time for ads is a requirement for any serious campaign that seeks to be competitive in a Senate or gubernatorial race as well as for a congressional race in any district within range of even a medium-sized media market.  Some estimates put the amount of money spent on TV ads — the consultants, pollsters, focus groups, production and time buys — as requiring up to 60 percent of the money a candidate raises.  So candidates spend increasing amounts of time raising money from special interests only to turn around and give it to the broadcasters who pocket it with a smile.

 And there’s really no other choice — a candidate can’t rely on the TV stations to inform voters about the candidates and their position on issues.  Voters rely primarily on television for their political information, yet the actual amount of this information available in newscasts is less than paltry.  A recent study by the Midwest News Index found that in the seven markets they studied, newscasts aired almost 4-1/2 minutes of paid political ads during a 30-minute broadcast, while only offering 1 minute 43 seconds of election news coverage.  Moreover, local television political news is overwhelmingly focused on national and statewide elections and characterized by stories on strategy, polling and the game of politics, with very little time devoted to substantive discussion of the issues. 

 The $2.25 billion spent on political ads in 2006 results from a system that worships at the altar of a free market broadcast economy even when such a thing doesn’t exist in reality.  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Kevin Martin, his predecessor Michael Powell and their like-minded colleagues have convinced themselves that this $2.25 billion boon for TV stations is a sign of a healthy competitive market. 

 They are wrong.  It is a sign that they, like many ideologues who fit the facts to their worldview, are in a state of denial and insist on sustaining a fiction even when the facts show otherwise.

 As a result, too many elections are not decided on a competition of ideas but on a competition of money and political consultants.  Can you imagine what the turnover in Congress would look like if there was indeed more competition?  A healthy democracy needs to be able to clear away the deadwood in its capital.

 The real tragedy of this situation is that $2.25 billion is being spent to gain access to airwaves owned by the American people.  But the television stations have exclusive and free use of a significant portion of the publicly owned airwaves.  The broadcasters’ “payment” to the federal government for this cash cow is supposed to be the fulfillment of their public interest obligations.  But these days, those obligations are a joke.  The FCC, with the complicity of Congress, has allowed the broadcasters to essentially define for themselves what those obligations are and how to fulfill them. 

 There is a better way.  And it doesn’t have to involve a heavy-handed government takeover of the airwaves.  Imagine a system where candidates, who demonstrate a reasonable level of public support, can get access to the airwaves if they are able to raise small-donor money which is matched by a communication voucher.  Candidates who wish to advertise can then “buy” airtime on broadcast TV stations with those vouchers.  No government mandates, no government censorship, and a reduction in the incentives to sell oneself to the big-money donors.  Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Representatives Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA) introduced such a measure in the 108th Congress, but the “Our Democracy, Our Airwaves”  bill went nowhere.  Not surprisingly, the bill has been vigorously opposed by the National Association of Broadcasters whose members profit so handsomely from the current way of doing business and who have scared away most Members of Congress from expressing support. 

 A communication voucher system is a self-regulating structure that won’t solve every problem with the political ads that turn off so many voters, but would begin to return some sanity to a system that has clearly slipped its moorings.  Changing the way candidates get access to the public airwaves will strengthen our democracy and should be high on the “to-do” list for the 110th Congress — even if means undermining the idea of election to Congress as a lifetime appointment.