Did I mention that I like the White Album?
After catching up at the Inland Empress blog, I started musing about the Commission on Presidential Debates. Who are they? Where do they come from? Do they use Mita photocopiers?
When I was a wee young lad, debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters. At some point, that changed. About.com has a bit of information on the subject:
The "non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates was established by the two parties, according to the Boston Globe: "[T]hen-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the commission, and they have co-chaired the organization ever since."
In 1960 (Kennedy-Nixon), the average audience for the four debates was 63.1 million.
In 1984 - the last year that the League of Women Voters sponsored a debate and an election that was a landslide for Reagan - the TV audience averaged 66.2 million for each of the two debates.
There's also a table on debate history that indicates that the (then) three networks sponsored the 1960 presidential debates, the League of Women Voters sponsored the debates between 1976 and 1984, and the Commission on Presidential Debates took over in 1988.
Kay J. Maxwell of the League issued the following letter in September 2004:
In the last few days, we have heard from several of you asking if the LWVUS will be making a public statement on this year's presidential debates. Many of these comments were the result of recent news stories on the debates mentioning the history of presidential debates and the League's past role. We were pleased and gratified to be described so positively on national television. Many people continue to believe that we still sponsor the debates. However, the League stopped doing them for reasons well known to us and described in the media. In reality, there is no way to put on debates if the candidates do not participate. The role of the two political parties in this became clear in 1988 and continues to this day. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was created for that purpose.
In the last year, the League has been asked to endorse various activities of the CPD, the Open Debates creation of a Citizens' Commission, and even World Wrestling Entertainment's (WWE) effort hosting a debate. After due consideration by both the 2002-2004 and the current LWVUS Board, the decision was made not to endorse any particular debates or specific organizations.
The LWVUS feels that voters benefit from the largest number of debates possible. It is more important to have some debates than none, and in fact, the more the better, and with the largest possible viewership possible, although that has been declining over the years....
Ah, the "reasons well known to us and described in the media." I had to go to museum.tv to get the story:
Sponsors of 1976, 1980, and 1984 presidential debates, the League of Women Voters, in 1988 the League of Women Voters decided not to sponsor the second presidential debate. The LWV considered itself to be an objective third party in the negotiating of debate formats. According to the article, "the League's board of trustees voted during the weekend to pull out of the Los Angeles debate because the Bush and Dukakis camp refused to renegotiate the terms of their agreement - the result of weeks of arduous talks - with League representatives." The LWV's withdrawal opened the door for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has sponsored the presidential debates ever since.
Well, the Commission on Presidential Debates has their own website. Let's see what spin they put on the reason for their very existence.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996 and 2000.
Now the Commission has a page describing how they exclude candidates from political parties with real ideas, although they don't put it in those terms.
The goal of the CPD's debates is to afford the members of the public an opportunity to sharpen their views, in a focused debate format, of those candidates from among whom the next President and Vice President will be selected. In each of the last four elections, there were scores of declared candidates for the Presidency, excluding those seeking the nomination of one of the major parties. During the course of the campaign, the candidates are afforded many opportunities in a great variety of forums to advance their candidacies. In order to most fully and fairly achieve the educational purposes of its debates, the CPD has developed nonpartisan, objective criteria upon which it will base its decisions regarding selection of the candidates to participate in its 2004 debates. The purpose of the criteria is to identify those candidates who have achieved a level of electoral support such that they realistically are considered to be among the principal rivals for the Presidency....
The CPD's second criterion requires that the candidate qualify to have his/her name appear on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2004 general election....
The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.
Bla bla bla. Or should I say blah blah blah?
Did you know that the 2004 debates were sponsored? And the previous debates were sponsored also.
2004 National Sponsors
AARP
American Airlines
America's Charities
Anheuser-Busch Companies
The Howard G. Buffett Foundation
Sheldon S. Cohen - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
Continental Airlines
Discovery Channel
EDS
JetBlue Airways
The Kovler Fund
2000 National Sponsors
Internet Sponsors
AT&T
Harris Interactive
Alteon WebSystems
ZoneOfTrust
Speche Communications
Webtrends
Tellme Networks
3Com
General Debate Sponsors
AARP, formerly American Association of Retired Persons
Anheuser-Busch
The Century Foundation
The Ford Foundation
Ford Motor Company
The Knight Foundation
The Marjorie Kovler Fund
US Airways
3Com
1996 National Sponsors
Anheuser-Busch
Sheldon S. Cohen - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
Dun & Bradstreet
Joyce Foundation
Lucent Technologies
The Marjorie Kovler Fund
Philip Morris Companies Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
Sprint
Twentieth Century Fund
1992 National Sponsors
AT&T
Atlantic Richfield
Sheldon S. Cohen -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
Dun & Bradstreet
Ford Motor Company
Hallmark
IBM
The Marjorie Kovler Fund
J.P. Morgan & Co.
Philip Morris Companies Inc.
Prudential
So, if you thought this year's debates were crappy, boycott AARP, American Airlines, America's Charities, Anheuser-Busch Companies, The Howard G. Buffett Foundation, Sheldon S. Cohen - Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Continental Airlines, Discovery Channel, EDS, JetBlue Airways, and The Kovler Fund.
Looks like Philip Morris was smart in getting out of sponsorship.
Comments