Behind the scenes of every presidential debate is an entity that dictates how the event is run, who may participate in the debates and how the event is produced. It is a system that has faced widespread criticism for its acceptance of private contributions from corporations and its controversial ‘15 percent criterion’ for debate participation.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), since 2004, has received private national debate sponsorship money from Anheuser-Busch Companies, the International Bottled Water Association, American Airlines, Hewlett-Packard and JetBlue Airways. In 1992 and 1996, tobacco mogul Phillip Morris acted as a major sponsor.
Open Debates, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that advocates presidential debate reform, argues that “The CPD has turned the presidential debates into yet another opportunity for special interests to influence the political process via financial contributions.”
The CPD was a group created with bipartisan support in 1987. Since then, it has established the foundation of the presidential debate as we see it today; a two-party event sponsored by private corporations. Debates prior to the creation of the CPD were moderated by the League of Women Voters (LWV), who pulled their support in 1988 after the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns secretly authored a memorandum of understanding dictating which candidates could participate in the debates and who the panelists would be. The LWV issued a statement, saying, “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.”
Open Debates, when examining sponsors, notes that “donations to the nonpartisan League of Women Voters were primarily considered civic charity” and not “political contributions” that corporations perceive their donations to be.
The men behind the scenes
The CPD is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, Paul Kirk and Michael McCurry. Fahrenkopf was the former chairman of the Republican National Committee and former president and CEO of the American Gaming Association, which has been described as “the lobby arm of the casino industry.” OpenSecrets reports that Kirk, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, was a registered lobbyist for law firm Sullivan & Worcester, which represented pharmaceutical companies. McCurry was also a lobbyist for some time in 2006 for Internet-related legislation with the group Hands Off the Internet.
OpenSecrets shared particular contribution totals on its website, concluding that “Kirk has collected $120,000 for lobbying on behalf of Hoechst Marion Roussel, a German pharmaceutical company. Fahrenkopf earns approximately $900,000 a year as the chief lobbyist for the nation’s $54-billion gambling industry. As president of the American Gaming Association, Fahrenkopf directs enormous financial contributions to major party candidates and saturates the media with “expert” testimony extolling gambling’s “many benefits.” ‘We’re not going to apologize for trying to influence political elections,’ said Fahrenkopf.”
Nancy Neuman, former president of the League of Women Voters, has been quoted as saying, “One of the big differences between us and the commission was that the commission could easily raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions. They did it very quickly in 1988. Even though I would go to some corporations, I would be lucky to get $5,000. Why? Because under the commission’s sponsorship, this is another soft-money deal. It is a way to show your support for the parties because, of course, it is a bipartisan commission and a bipartisan contribution. There was nothing in it for corporations when they made a contribution to the League. Not a quid pro quo. That’s not the case with the commission.”
The CPD conducts debates based on a debate contract that candidates agree too, however, the CPD has refused to make the contact information available to the public.
Aside from special interest contributions, the CPD has been heavily criticized for excluding candidates from debates and restricting the number of candidates voters are exposed to prior to casting their ballots. Since 2000, the CPD now requires presidential candidates to reach 15 percent in at least five national polls to participate in the debates.
Contracts detailing who the participants are, who the moderators are, what topics will be covered and in what format of the debate will be conducted have been written since the CPD took control of the presidential debates. Campaigns involved with the 2004 presidential race were given this contract to follow through the debate process.
Criticizing the contracts in a 2004 interview with National Public Radio (NPR), activist Connie Rice said that many important topics go without mention because the contracts allow for it.
“Really important but sticky or tough issues get axed, because the parties control the questions and topics,” Rice says. “For example, in 2000, Gore and Bush mentioned the following issues zero times: Child poverty, the drug war, homelessness, working-class families, NAFTA, prisons, corporate crime and corporate welfare.”
“A debate is a head-to-head, spontaneous, structured argument over the merits of an issue,” Rice told NPR. “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.”
Source: Mint Press