From the St. Louis Post Dispatch (Editorial):

St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Sunday, April 8, 2007

Box office boffo

It says something disturbing about the future of democracy when a presidential
election is judged by the same standards as weekend box office receipts for
movies. "Blades of Glory" out-earned "Meet the Robinsons" $33 million to $25
million, and Hillary Clinton edged Barack Obama $26 million to $25 million.

So this is how America judges its presidential candidates, by the box office
boffo factor? What about the little low-budget masterpiece that trails the
pack, the one that historians will be talking about 50 years from now? You
don't want to compare, say, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware or former
Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas to "The Bicycle Thief," but shouldn't
ideas count for something?

Apparently not so much in the era of the billion-dollar presidential campaign,
which is what most experts say the 2008 race will be. If you don't "open
strong," as they say in Hollywood, your contributions dry up, and no matter how
good your ideas are, they can't be heard. Thus, for the last few months,
would-be presidents have been raising money day and night, pointing to
Wednesday's deadline for reporting first-quarter contributions for 2007.

The idea is not just to raise money, but to winnow the field. In the case of
Mrs. Clinton of New York, the idea was to raise so much money that she would
appear to be unbeatable. Having started with $14 million left over from her
Senate re-election campaign last year, and with access to the legions of
supporters for her husband, former President Bill Clinton, Mrs. Clinton figured
to run away with the box office championship, which is why she released her
totals early last week.

But on Tuesday, Mr. Obama of Illinois sprung his trap on her. He not only had
raised almost as much money as Mrs. Clinton, but he also had done it in a
shorter period of time from a much larger base of donors. Not only that, Mr.
Obama's campaign said most of the money is dedicated to the primary campaign.

Candidates are allowed to raise a maximum of $4,600 split evenly between the
primary and general election campaigns. But if they don't win the nomination,
they have to refund contributions earmarked for the general election. Thus,
because the money game is about perception and expectations, Mr. Obama is the
Democrats' box office champion. U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina
reported raising $14 million, with the rest of the Democratic field consigned
to the direct-to-video bin.

On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won the
sweepstakes with $23 million, trailed by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
with $15 million and U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona at $12.5 million. Again,
because it's about perceptions and expectations, Mr. McCain forfeits his
presumed front-runner position — not because of his ideas but because he hasn't
shaken the money tree as effectively as the others.

This is no way to pick a president. You foreclose candidates with strong ideas
and weak fund-raising operations — Abraham Lincoln would have tanked at the box
office — and you tell people who don't have $2,300 that their preferences don't
count as much as those with bigger checkbooks.

There has to be a better way. In fact, there is.


Killing the cash cow

04/09/2007

Like any diligent politician, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was tending his political fence lines last fall when he dropped in on the manager of a television station in a small southern Illinois county.

"I say, 'Howya doin'?' " Mr. Durbin recalled.

"And the guy says, 'Great. I really am doing great.' "

"And I say, 'Why?' "

"He says, 'My signal plays over in Missouri. McCaskill and Talent have bought every minute of time. I've got nothing to sell any more. My regular advertisers are waiting in the wings for this campaign to end.' "

Mr. Durbin told this story by way of explaining why he has introduced, along with U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., S. 936, the Fair Elections Now Act. Mr. Durbin says he's tired of political campaigns being a "cash cow for TV stations." And now that Mr. Durbin is the Senate's assistant majority leader, thanks in part to Democrat Claire McCaskill's victory over Republican Jim Talent in Missouri's U.S. Senate race last fall, the campaign finance bill is going to get a prompt hearing in the Senate Rules Committee.

S. 936 would create a public financing mechanism for U.S. Senate races. It might even serve as a vehicle for a wider system of publicly financed federal elections. It could help put an end to the financial arms race that modern campaigns have become. Last year's mid-term election saw candidates pump $2.1 billion into TV advertising, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

Experts say the 2008 presidential election alone will cost $1 billion. Throw in Senate, House and gubernatorial races, and that bill could triple. And that's just the financial cost; the ultimate cost comes when winning candidates start returning favors for their big donors.

About 60 percent of all campaign money is spent on television advertising. And if you think it's been bad before, wait until next year, which actually begins this year. Primary season has been moved up, which means most delegates will be selected by early February, which means the barrage of political advertising will begin earlier and last longer.

"Today's campaigns function as collection agencies for broadcasters," former U.S. Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., once observed. "You simply transfer money from contributors to television stations."

The Durbin-Specter bill would offer Senate candidates the option of receiving public funds for their campaigns, once they establish their credentials as legitimate candidates by raising a threshold number of $5 donations. They also would get vouchers to spend on television ads and discounts on advertising time. If their opponents are spending private contributions, the "fair fight" provision of the bill would give publicly-financed candidates extra funds to match well-heeled candidates.

The Senate portion of the bill would cost about $315 million a year, Mr. Durbin estimates. If the House adopts its version, it would cost $1.16 billion a year. The money would come from multiple sources, including a tax on broadcasters' gross revenues and a 10 percent tax on sales of broadcast frequencies. Mr. Durbin argues that television broadcasters are "spectrum hogs," profiting from the public airways without paying for them.

"They're going to hate this," Mr. Durbin said of broadcasters, who have lobbied successfully against similar reform efforts in the past. With audiences for broadcast television diminishing, campaign ads are a major source of revenue for TV stations; in the 2003-2004 election cycle, some 80 percent of new revenue for local stations came from political advertising, Mr. Durbin said.

He said incumbents may resist, too, even though former U.S. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., once estimated a senator spends a third of every day raising money.

"As much as they hate their lives now, they fear change even more," Mr. Durbin said.

He said his bill would work against incumbents, including himself.

"I'm basically buying myself a primary opponent next year," Mr. Durbin said. "But incumbents have enough advantages."

Let us count the advantages of this bill for voters: A more level playing field drawing a more attractive pool of candidates. More discussion about issues and less about money. Some restraint of negative TV ads that inundate the airwaves in the weeks before an election. Diminished influence for big donors.

Unless you're a fat cat or a TV station owner, what's not to like?