Who Runs the Presidential Debates?

by

With the first of three presidential debates set to air this Wednesday October 3 at 9:00 pm EST, viewers need to understand that the spin zone begins well before the pundits throw in their two cents after the debate.

The Commission on Presidential Debates is the nonprofit corporation behind the presidential and vice presidential debates since 1988. It may seem like an innocuous enough title– its name appears non-partisan, independent, and most voters may not even question its origins and funding. However, much like the rest of the U.S. electoral process, the two mainstream political parties with their corporate backers dictate the structure of the debates to such an extent that it damages the democratic process.

Drowning Out Third-Party Voices

With heavy ties to the Republican and Democratic parties, it’s no surprise that the CPD implemented an arbitrary rule to keep out third-party voices. Under the leadership of co-chairman Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr., former Republican National Committee Chairman and current President and CEO of The American Gaming Association, third-party candidates must have at least 15 percent support in at least five national polls to debate.

Considering the U.S. public often bemoans the corporate-backed two-party system dominating the public discourse, the presidential debates would likely be the most opportune time to reverse that trend. But since the corporate establishment doesn’t support third-party candidates, the corporate-owned mainstream media isn’t about to give those candidates a platform. It is so difficult for third-party candidates to meet that 15 percent rule and gain traction in the MSM echo chamber that mainstream candidates never have to contend with a third-party presence. 

In conjunction with the Citizens United ruling in 2010, it seems corporate power has never had such a stronghold over the democratic process. According to the Sunlight Foundation, 78 percent of the approximately $465 million in outside funds raised for the campaign can be directly traced to the 2010 ruling. This creates a perfect storm for the rise of a corporate plutocracy. Basically, in order to penetrate the mainstream marketplace of ideas, a candidate needs a lot of money. As candidacy requires larger and larger sums of money, it becomes harder and harder for a candidate to separate their actions on the campaign trail or in office from the bidding of their powerful donors. It would read like a conspiracy theory, except for all this information is readily available and the rise of corporate power is already all too obvious to voters. The CPD is just one more channel through which corporate money and power can influence the electorate. 

 Is It Still a Debate?

As civil rights activist and lawyer Connie Rice explained in an interview on the Tavis Smiley Show back in 2004, the CPD-run debates do not stick to the format of a true debate: 

 A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue…Under the ridiculous 32-page contract that reads like the rules for the Miss America Pageant, there will be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rebuttal to your opponent’s points, no cross questions or cross answers, no rebuttals, no follow-up questions — that’s not a debate, that’s a news conference.

Rice is referring to the contract President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry signed prior to the 2004 debates. The introduction of contracts controlling everything from topics to be discussed to camera angles to be used was not implemented without controversy. Before the CPD took over, the truly independent and non-partisan League of Women Voters refused to bend to Democratic and Republican pressures to draw up a contract prior to the 1988 presidential debates. In fact, they withdrew from participation in the debates in protest with President Nancy M. Neuman saying at the time:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.

This year, the CPD is not even releasing the details of the contract to the public. This decision has caused 18 pro-democracy groups including Open Debates, Common Cause, and Public Citizen among others, to issue a statement calling for CPD to make the details of the contract public. After all, the debates are for the benefit of the public, not the two dominant political parties. This level of secrecy only further exacerbates the already egregious track record of the CPD’s monopoly over the presidential debates. 

Essentially, the American voter is now in uncharted waters in terms of corporate dominance over the electoral process. So as you watch the candidates debate over the next few weeks, just remember that it has already been corporate approved. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002856016374 William P. Homans

    When I first looked up the history of the CPD, less than two weeks ago, I was already well aware that the Democratic and Republican Parties were in collusion to control the entire political process. I had already been disenfranchised in 2000 when the Parties, through their catspaw MSNBC, refused to let Ralph Nader, that year a viable candidate, take part in the debates, but forced him out of the debate hall with security guards although he held a legitimate ticket to be there.

    BET that Frank Fahrenkopf had sumpin’ to do with THAT. It does not surprise me that Fahrenkopf is a shaker in the gambling industry– that’s what it is, no matter how they may try to sanitize it by calling it “gaming,” Like the stock market.

    The economic powers behind the two Parties are in position, owing to the Citizens United ruling, to OUTRIGHT buy the entire political process. This year, as Mr. (or MS.; Shannon could be either) O’Sullivan has pointed out, they only bought 78% of it, and they probably now see that they didn’t dig deep enough to defeat an incumbent president who had, at the very worst, kept a lid on most of the really high-profile disasters, like the Gulf Oil Spill (NO ONE can keep a lid on Fukushima, of course), or the financial meltdown at the end of the previous Administration.

    I think more moderate to-liberal swing-voters’ primary disappointment with Obama will be that he has compromised so often with the Republicans, rather than that Republican policies were not explicitly followed.

    What that means is that the majority of less than satisfied voters will hold their noses and vote for Obama. A percentage will stay home, but the Republican forces of vote suppression have not done a good enough job, as shown by their desperate attempt at an October surprise, calling Obama’s mother a porn model!

    I’m going to vote for Obama, in a state that has not polled less than 56-44 Red since 2011, when Haley Barbour’s Lieutenant Governor Paul Bryant (no, not Bear) defeated Johnny Dupree, the black mayor of Hattiesburg, for Governor.

    Polling organizations haven’t even taken a presidential poll in Mississippi in 2012. I suppose they think that it would be a waste of money. They’re wrong, of course. Mississippi may have voted in Barbour’s heir-apparent, but they are failing to take into account the really underwhelming candidate the GOP has put up. Thousands of the Mississippi Republican evangelical base, in the quietness of the voting booth, are going to reflect,”He’s a MORMON. I ain’t votin’ f’no Mormon,” and either pull the D lever or walk out of that booth having only cast down-ticket votes.

    Corporate approved. Yessir. Mr. or Ms. O’Sullivan, I am your fellow knight of the keyboard. In another day we might have been ink-stained knights-errant, but nobody uses ink any more, and the last actual knight I met (in Ireland, still possessing his castle in County Monaghan!) was 93 in 2010. That chivalry is gone is proven by the 2012 political campaign.

    • Shannon O’Sullivan

      William–it’s Ms. :) Glad to see you share my passions on this issue!