Many European countries have public media space of this sort, and it is a marginal
improvement on US practices -- but only marginal. The major parties use their huge
financial advantage for all the other aspects of campaigning and continue to
dominate. Their power is often aided by the fragmentation of the public media
across a large number of minor parties, most of which have little prospect of
attracting more support.
If you provide every self-announced candidate with free and equal TV time, then
those TV spots will be irrelevant. If you set up a minimum-support bar, you freeze
out new voices. A voucher system is the only way I know to square that circle.
Also, a voucher system would be an easier political sell, since people could
control where their money goes.
Peter
Michael Perelman wrote:
> Rather than political vouchers, I would if like to see more noncommercial space
> in the airwaves. Give candidates of all stripes an opportunity to make their
> case to the public for radio and television. Hell, I actually love to see the
> spectrum given back to some sort of public control. How can you possibly have
> the democratic election when few people are given the opportunity to learn
> about what's really going on.
>
> I can't believe how much Gore has blown it. Bradley might have done better.
> Actually, even Charles Manson might have done better.
>
> Harry Shearer asked today what Buchanan did with his $12 million. Maybe the
> Buchanan might have done worse than Gore, but not many others could.
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
