*** Copyright c 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1995 by Nicholas Johnson. Conditions: This material is copyright by Nicholas Johnson. However, permission is hereby granted by him to download, copy and distribute the text to others if (1) the text is not altered, and (2) there is no charge to the recipient, and (3) this copyright notice and conditions are attached. It is a copyright violation to distribute this material altered, or without the copyright notice and conditions attached, or to use the material in any way for which remuneration is received without the prior permission of Nicholas Johnson. Contact: 1035393@mcimail.com; Box 1876 Iowa City IA 52244; 319-337-5555. Anyone using this material should also be aware that, as a syndicated column, copyright may also have been retained by the syndication services. During the 1982-86 period of publication syndicators included: The Iowa City Press-Citizen, Gannett Corporation, Register and Tribune Syndicate, Cowles Syndicate, and the King Features Syndicate. *** How They Sell Us Back Our Air If you think $5 to $25 is a big contribution, it's just a dream. But if you're a corporate official doing a multi-billion-dollar business it's an option worth, as they say, "costing out." There are a number of companies receiving more than $1 billion a year from the government. It may be from defense contracts, tax benefits, subsidies, tariff protection or price supports. For them, owning Congress is an investment, an insurance premium. There are 535 senators and members of Congress. Because their power is delegated to committees, and the chairmen, it's not necessary to own all of them. But, to be safe, let's figure $l,000 for everybody each election. And let's overstate the number of legislators who really hold the power over a company -- say 10 percent of each body. Suppose, every time they run, we give each of 43 congressmen $29,000, and 10 senators $86,000 (plus the $1000). That should get their attention. What will that cost each year? A mere $1 million. A million's a lot to you and me, but with a return of $1 billion it's only a minuscule one- tenth of one percent. It's as if your annual $100 contribution would produce a government check for $100,000 every year of your life. Would you think $100 too much to pay? Of course it's a scandal. We see the results in legislation, the tax laws, and appropriations. Congress works like a Robin Hood in reverse -- robbing from the poor to give to the rich. (The poor are notoriously miserly in their campaign contributions.) A handful of candid elected officials speak openly of the problem, and even work for reform. Common Cause and other citizens groups complain. But I don't recall ever hearing a complaint from a major donor. It's just an investment. And one producing a better return than they get elsewhere. What does all this have to do with communications? Everything. There is lots of talk about the high costs of campaigning. But I can tell you, as a one-time congressional candidate myself, that there's no such thing as the high cost of campaigning. Really. Many of us personally scrape together enough money to put bumper stickers or yard signs all over a congressional district. Even with today's gasoline prices, we could pay to drive a car around the district and meet voters. So what's the problem? The cost of radio and TV time. Period. Consider this analogy. Suppose you're trying to control your household costs. Your utility bills are running $1,000 a month. Gas, electric, water and phone total $100. The other $900 goes to buy fresh air. What's the best way to cut costs? By rationing drinking water, or figuring out a way to breath freely? You see, that's what broadcasters are doing. They are corrupting the integrity of our democratic process by selling us back our air. To communicate with constituents, officials have to beg for money to buy TV time. A fund-raising letter from one recently listed the costs of spots on "Hill Street Blues" ($4,500), "MASH," and "Dallas" ($4,000 each). He figured the cost of spots in six shows, and concluded, "And I'm sure you'd agree we'll need more than six spots a week!" I did not send him $24,000. But somebody will -- or he'll lose. One of the national parties asked me for money by pointing out, "it takes $75,000 a week just to advertise twice a night in a city like Rochester." It estimated opposition budgets of $1 million a day. The total may run $300 million. What's the answer? We'll try some here next week. [ICPC September 20, 1982] # # # Free Air Time for Candidates What's the answer to high campaign costs? Part one of this two-part series showed how $l million can get you $l billion if you're a corporate contributor with government contracts. Today's statewide political races can easily cost $1 million or more. Suppose you ran. Could you and your friends raise that $1 million? I doubt it. But you'd find no shortage of special-interest money available from "political action committees," or PACs. The PAC man is not just a video game. He's a political Santa Claus in a red suit and pointed tail. He brings neatly wrapped bags of money to all the good little boy and girl legislators who have voted to make him richer. One wants oil companies to pay no taxes. Another wants higher milk prices. A third wants limits on steel or auto imports. Others want billions more in defense contracts. It's not much to ask, is it, for $1 million in campaign contributions? The problem is that you and I have to pay the taxes the oil companies don't, the milk prices set by government, the "corporate welfare" payments. The problem, in short, is that we no longer have "representative" democracy. Legislators vote the interests of their contributors, not their constituents. Dollars count more than votes. It's a corrupting process, even if no one ever personally pocketed a dime. So why are campaign costs so high? Where does the money go? It goes for postage, printing, telephone bills, bumper stickers. Lots of things. But most of the money -- in some campaigns as much as 90 percent -- goes for radio and TV time. Producing those commercials costs money too. But most of it is spent buying time. How much? The record for a TV network commercial on the most popular programs is approaching $1 million. That's for one commercial. Of course, buying only one station is much less. But $5,000 a minute is not unheard of. And nobody buys just one minute. It would be a waste of money. You need repeated exposure, often on many stations, during a number of weeks. Two hundred spots? One million dollars. You get the idea. It's all brought to you by the PAC man. The same guy who's paying for all those other commercials you see on TV. So what can we do about it? How can we buy back our government? Most proposals require us to do just that. You and I are supposed to match, dollar for dollar, what the PAC man gives. We can do this with contributions directly to candidates or create our own PACs -- PACs to prevent nuclear devastation, environmental ruin, or support of education. Or, we can pay as taxpayers, with federal financing of elections, like the presidential race. Is there a better way -- cheaper, more sensible? You bet there is. Eliminate the principal cost. How? Easy. Radio and TV station operators are selected and protected by the Federal Communications Commission. They use public property for private profit. In return, the law says, they must "serve the public interest." Either Congress or the FCC could declare "the public interest" requires time be free for candidates. Virtually every other country on earth not only makes time available for free they forbid the purchase of time. Why not us? The Federal Election Commission has just ruled free time won't violate its standards. Broadcasters -- averaging nearly 100 percent per year on depreciated capital -- can certainly afford lt. Formulas are available for dividing the time. "Equal time" has worked for years. Who could oppose the idea? Broadcasters and the PAC man. They profit from buying Congress. We don't. [ICPC September 27, 1982] END OF FILE