HOME

By Mike Tully

SANTA FE, New Mexico - Messrs. Franzi and Danehy, in their "Liberal-Conservative Manifesto," conclude their attack on public financing of elections with this statement: "(P)ublic funding is ultimately MORE dangerous to the democratic process than all that special interest money will ever be."

That’s a mouthful. More dangerous than special interest money will ever be?

A claim of that sort, rooted in the future, requires a consistent and predictable environment if it’s going to make any sense at all. In other words, conditions have to be more or less the same in order for such a statement to make any logical sense. Based on everything we’ve known, the authors of the Manifesto imply, public financing will always be more dangerous than special interest money. The premise of unchanged conditions is unsound. Like it or not, things change, and change can make today’s brilliance tomorrow’s folly.

I don’t agree that the participation of Andrew Thomas and Dick Mahoney in the election process argues against public financing any more than the participation of Joe Sweeney or Ed Finkelstein argues against the traditional process. Neither process is exclusionary, nor should it be. The inference that the electorate requires a pre-qualified class of candidates implies the political ethos of Socrates, and we all know what Socrates’ elitism led him to. Pluralism in politics is good. The argument that public financing is politically incorrect because it invites the gadfly is unpersuasive.

Public financing didn’t work in New Jersey, complain the authors of the Manifesto, so we should not try it in Arizona. Why did it not work in New Jersey? Because of "the ongoing corruption that is part of that state's basic political culture." Shame on New Jersey, but that is a condition unique to the Garden State. Do the Authors claim a similar "culture" in Arizona? The last time I looked, Arizona politicians didn’t have the smarts, experience, or moxie to create a culture of corruption. We have occasional hiccups of corruption like most states, but the comparison to New Jersey is unconvincing and misplaced.

The Authors also state, "(Public funding) allows select bureaucrats, like City clerks in Arizona, the power to decide which candidates get their public funding quickly, and who waits while more ‘investigation’ is done." I wasn’t aware there was a history of the Tucson City Clerk holding up funding with "investigations", but maybe that has happened somewhere, or maybe it might happen somewhere. If such a problem exists in Arizona, I’m sure it can be fixed. Most things can be fixed.

Which brings us to the real issue, the one that was missing from the pages of the Manifesto: the problem with the current system.

That returns us to the false premise of unchanged conditions. Conditions are changing and the trends are alarming. Elected officials divert more of their time and energy to fund-raising than ever before. Media buys are through the roof. In South Dakota alone last year, more than 26,000 television ads ran in the Senate race. That’s a lot of money for out-of-state ad agencies and a reminder that they are already part of the political landscape, with or without public funding. There is nothing esoteric about 26 thousand TV ads. That’s a leaflet drop with electrons.

But it’s not just the magnitude of the funds expended that bothers me. Heck, I like it when insurance companies pour millions into Arizona to lose initiative elections. That’s good for the local economy, local TV stations, radio stations, and so on. Unfortunately, many are no longer local TV stations and radio stations. As the FCC recklessly encourages media consolidation, local allegiances are replaced by remote bottom lines and "local" becomes an outmoded concept. Corporations – not necessarily American – are devouring localism around the globe, and the United States has not escaped that phenomenon. Our media, unfortunately, are becoming less trustworthy.

There was a time when The Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time provision afforded some protection for minority voices and prevented any media armada from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas. Those regulations were swept away in the Reagan era. They were no longer necessary, said their critics, because the growth of cable TV would provide sufficient channels for the expression of all ideas. That might have made sense with the premise that things would not change. Of course, things did change, and Clear Channel and its ilk gobbled up local voices from coast to coast. Does Clear Channel have clout? Ask the Dixie Chicks.

This is where I part ways with Tom and Emil. I disagree with their premise that public financing will always be more dangerous to the democratic process than special interest (private) financing. Public financing will never enjoy the sheer magnitude of dollars disgorged by the current system, nor will it encumber so much productive time of our elected officials. More dangerously, there are insufficient safeguards against the broadcast monopolies suppressing certain points of view. Legally, broadcast licenses are public property and must be used in the public interest. Unfortunately, the federal government’s generosity with the media conglomerates has funneled opinion into an ever-narrowing sluice of information sources. What comes out is driven by the self-interest of the conglomerates, not by any rational definition of public interest.

There is, sadly, insufficient protection against monopolization of American media and American politics and the loss of an informed electorate. Given this lack of protection, public financing is not a feel-good idea, it’s a tourniquet.

The Equal Time rule and the Fairness Doctrine might have sufficiently cooled the political reactor so that public financing would not be necessary. But those safeguards are gone and there is nothing out there, nothing, that American citizens can rely upon to challenge the tsunami of mis-and-disinformation. There is no defense against election after election being purchased by money and lies. There is no defense against the democratic process being subverted by faceless powers with hidden agendas. I believe the American people deserve better.

Given the current trends, I support public financing of elections.

July 30, 2003

All content on this page © by Mike Tully