The journey from there to here

In Baker's featured article, he addressed the impact that campaign finance reform laws could potentially have on blogging (that the suggested interpretations constitute a gross violation of the first amendment is another story entirely). This brought to mind another concern of mine; that of equal time laws and how they have continually been violated as regards third parties.

I pulled the following from the linked website: Link

The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office. (emphasis added by author).

In many of the past elections, one or more third party candidates have been "legally qualified political candidates". Their exclusions from the debates notwithstanding, they have been denied access even for their OWN debates (this past election year, THREE debates were held with Badnarik and Cobb participating; Nader, Bush, and Kerry were all invited, but declined). This has had tremendous impact on the perceptions of third parties and the "wasted vote" theory (most individuals rely on third hand information as regards third parties, since the firsthand info isn't as readily available).

In an ironic twist regarding the exclusion of third parties, they have been INCLUDED where equal time laws were concerned. In the 1970's, when comedian Pat Paulsen "ran" for president, a TV station aired a Doris Day film in which Paulsen appeared. The GOP and the Democrats IMMEDIATELY cited equal time laws to gain time from the TV station in question.

It is time for Americans to have access to ALL of the information in political races. Equal time laws were designed for this very reason, and it is long past time that we put them in force to ensure access for third parties.

 

 


Comments
on Mar 07, 2005
Great Article!!

The "equal time" irony of the 2004 presidential election was, even after Badnarik and Cobb were arrested for showing up to the so-called "presidential debate", most major news outlets didn't even give them "equal time" by covering the arrest.

Liberals like to talk about how they are all about helping the underdog get an even chance. From what I've seen from major party Liberals, that is nothing but a bold faced lie!!!

And on the other side of the aisle. C'mon Conservatives, where's all the talk about returning to the Constitutional model and "Original Intent". Is it only "The Constitution, as long as it helps Republicans?" Do you only make "Original Intent" references when it fits your agenda? I defy anyone to justify the treatment of third party candidates (for any office) by those who blow hot air about how much they care!!!
on Mar 07, 2005
And on the other side of the aisle. C'mon Conservatives, where's all the talk about returning to the Constitutional model and "Original Intent". Is it only "The Constitution, as long as it helps Republicans?" Do you only make "Original Intent" references when it fits your agenda? I defy anyone to justify the treatment of third party candidates (for any office) by those who blow hot air about how much they care!!!


What concerns me is, the Republicans seem to have gotten the oligarchy they've long desired. Google "Tom Delay investigation" to see what some of his associates have done to silence the Democrats voice in Texas.
on Mar 07, 2005
"The "equal time" irony of the 2004 presidential election was, even after Badnarik and Cobb were arrested for showing up to the so-called "presidential debate", most major news outlets didn't even give them "equal time" by covering the arrest."

Wow, I didn't even know that happened.

I assume then that Equal Time would apply to a cable news network that airs a 30 minute interview with a candidate - they would then have to offer a 30 minute interview to all the other candidates?