My earliest and most lasting civics lessons came courtesy of the Saturday morning cartoon infomercials called Schoolhouse Rock. My favorite all time episode was called I’m Just a Bill. I was such a fan, and so incredibly geeky, that I actually ordered the CD for my own kids.
For those of you who lack the exemplary education of a Gen-X-er raised by commercial television, I’m Just a Bill is an animated illustration of how a Bill becomes a law in the U.S. federal government. It’s actually a musical. The lyrics are still popping in my head some thirty years after first hearing them. Ah, the remarkable power of jingles.
Anyway, by this time, you might be asking yourself, “To what do I owe this small bit of trivial nostalgia?”
Well, I’m thinking about I’m Just a Bill, because on my daily walk this morning, around the snow-dusted and anesthetizing landscape of suburbia, I started thinking of a new law. And I started imagining calling up my fat little suited Congressman (my Congressman is not really fat, like the cartoon character in I’m Just a Bill, but he has worn similarly cheesy suits from time to time) and proposing my solution to a problem.
The problem I was thinking of is not as simple as buses stopping at railroad crossings. I’m thinking campaign finance reform. Or some system designed to defeat the overwhelming influence of money in the political system. And I think I’ve got something.
Problem: Since the advent of television, political campaigns have become heavily influenced by the new media. It is not only expensive for candidates to compete by buying sufficient air time, but the small time slots that can be purchased are only useful for advertising in sound bites. By and large, political speech has been dumbed down to a level very close to tooth paste marketing. No more town halls to look over the candidates and their ideas.
Proposed solution: Since there seems to be some constitutional issues which prevent us from taking the money out of campaigns, I started to think about an alternative. What if, instead of taking the money out, we started giving all candidates access to sufficient air time so that they could get their message out to the people.
This thought came to me the other night, at a framing workshop I attended. Essentially, it seemed to me, that what was being taught was not how to have better ideas about improving our country, but how to make better, more attractive sound bites. The whole thing was about getting better at selling tooth paste.
Now I have some natural ability, as a trial lawyer, when it comes to saying something slick and persuasive. I’m not the best, by far. But I was loads ahead of most in the room.
Problem is, as I saw it last night, was that I knew I was saying some pretty trite, surface level things, in order to sound persuasive. The shorter and sweeter, the better. The less actual substance, the better. And, as a country, I think we could really use a little substance right now.
This point was driven home, when one of my former college philosophy professors (Teacher Toni, since I spoke with you about this guy, I have bumped into him twice — a very bizarre random occurrence) tried his hand at “framing.” The man is a genius. And very entertaining. The things he said were brilliant. They honestly took my breath away. He evaluated all sides of an issue, and then synthesized everything into a thoughtful approach. It took him ten to twenty minutes, but it was wonderful. Only problem. He got basically an “F” for framing. Because there was no sound bite. Too much there, there. Which I think is total bullshit. And it occurred to me, that what the professor had just done, sounded a lot like what Ross Perot did in 1992 (only the Professor was brilliant, and Ross Perot was just entertaining, and perhaps right about “free trade”). What the professor needed was an infomercial. And what our country needs is a lot of infomercials. So that really smart people can talk to the masses about our problems. And how to fix them. Enough selling fucking tooth paste.
So here is my pitch. We all call our fat guys in suits and tell them that they need to adopt the following law:
A broadcast network will be established nation wide, to be maintained by a non-partisan commission. The purpose of the broadcast network will be to inform voters and give access to the public airwaves to candidates for office. The broadcast network shall be carried on all cable networks free of charge.
In every election for state and federal office, every candidate appearing in an election shall be given three one-hour time slots per week for the fifteen weeks prior to the election. Candidates air time will be broadcast only to such parts of the network that cover the election districts in their areas. All candidates on the ballot will receive equal air time, to be used as they see fit. Air time will be split so that the candidates for the highest ranking offices shall be given priority viewing times. To the extent that air time will not accommodate all candidates, candidates will be eliminated from the broadcast schedule based on a formula weighted to balance the importance of the office, and the candidates relative low standing in non-partisan polling.
In order to properly promote civic participation in election education, all commercial networks shall be required to run public service advertisements promoting the election coverage network. Commercial networks will provide public service announcements in an amount, and timed in a manner, in accordance with the average times, placements and frequencies of the largest 50 advertisers on the commercial network.
I know. I know. It would never work, right? I mean, they are our airwaves right? But what corporation is going to substitute a couple hours of a progressive professor running for office, when it could have the dim feeb Bill O’Reilly spouting babbling nonsense during this time.
So, what do you think? Is this something to send to the fat guys in suits. Can they cut and paste from our e-mails, and send a little animated bill running up and down the steps of the Capitol, down through committees, etc. Until he becomes a law or gets vetoed?
Just an idle thought, on a cold walk. And something to share.
I don’t know. I like the idea. The trouble would be getting the FCC and FEC on board. Also this would require enabling legislation to establish it I think.
I’m Just a Bill talks about passing laws. Laws created the FCC and FEC. Time for Schoolhouse Rock, special summer school edition, StevenD. 🙂
or CSPAN2 be used for this? I think they’re available on all cable/satellite networks, and perhaps videotapes/DVDs of candidates’ messages could be made available to local libraries for those without cable access (with more computers able to show DVDs, people could even view them at the library). Oh, and also audiotapes for the vision impaired, and close-captioning for the hearing impaired or if you’re listening to Texans… 😉 (I remember going to an appearance by Molly Ivins — I thoroughly enjoyed it even though I couldn’t understand a damn word she said.)
This would certainly be a better use of the resources than endless repeats of whatever it is they show during off hours…
Cspan – Sept 24th lack of coverage- ’nuff said. 🙂
There is no reason why C-SPAN couldn’t be used in this way. They serve a similar purpose. Airing the process of governing on the public airwaves. I just think elections are a big enough deal that they rate their own network. And the money it would cost is nothing if it would help restore democracy.
Yes. The law should have a radio, close captioned, etc. part, too. Good suggestion.
Loved Schoolhouse Rock
Conjunction junction, what’s your function
Little Eleven Toes
and… Janet she’s a planet she’s a galaxy girl. Which at times I HATED. Other times, I loved.
I think they have those on DVD somewhere right? My kids have to see those. Those were awesome. Gawd… so much our kids are missing that we took for granted. Playing outside till it got dark. Riding bikes… till it got dark. STaying out way past dark…
the only thing we feared at home was the dreaded, “you’ll poke somene’s eye out” or worse – BOTH of their eyes.
btw, BostonJoe, I’m very huggyemotional right now so I’m just gonna say it. I love ya! xoxox take care! Thanks for helping me grow this year by watching you grow. I’m so glad to have you in my widdle world. 🙂
Yeah. I have the CDs. Glad you are in world to DJ. Are you moved yet?
Everyone of that generation can still rattle off the preamble of the Constitution…
We the people in order to form a MORE PERFECT UNION, ESTABLISH JUSTICE, ENSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY…
…perhaps this administration should be given a copy of this CD.
I LOVED those! Conjunction junction, what’s your function? Interplanet Janet, yup they were the best…hmm..on DVD you say?
And inexpensive, too!
Sounds pretty good to me except for this: “candidates will be eliminated… [based on] …the candidates relative low standing in non-partisan polling.”
Instead, how about reducing time for candidates who have bought more than x number of spots on pay-TV? This would give time to candidates who can’t be heard because of lack of wealthy patrons. Maybe they could then attract donations, purchase more pay-TV time, and get less free-TV, thereby leaving still more time for the not-so-wealthy candidates.
The problem, as I see it, is not that SOME candidates have MORE access to TV, but that ALL candidates do not have SOME access to TV.
I like your suggestion about reducing time, if necessary, based on pay-Tv outlays.
However, I think that there would be plenty of time for all candidates ont he ballot. And if it came to cuts, I believe the cuts would be to candidates polling extraordinarily low in races of the relative least importance (think, the Natural Law Candidate in the State House race).
I do think that there could be some way to reduce the time for low-polling candidates, but I think that free-TV should only become restrictive over time. In other words, all candidates get an hour per week during the first two to four weeks, then start eliminating them if they don’t cross some threshold of popularity. This would still allow the poorest of candidates to have at least a chance of getting some traction.
Joe: I have long wondered when the technology to make us a true Democracy (TV or now, the inter net/TV) would be utilized to make us a true Democracy. I don’t know if you have all the I’s dotted and the T’s crossed, but I sure do like the concept. Is this idea at all related to what Al Gore is up to? Perhaps he would enjoy hearing from you on this? Just a thought.
Thanks keepinon. Al Gore might be a good receptor for this concept.
I have had walks where I’ve thought the same thing, re: true democracy. It could certainly be done with today’s tech. Of course, you would still have the problem of the tyranny of television. What would the new controllers of Democracy (e.g., ordinary people) do with their powers? Probably whatever corporate TV told them to do. So there would be a new industry of herding public opinion to control the direct Democracy. Still, I like the idea of direct Democracy versus a the Republic we have now. And then again, perhaps I can see the benefits of representative government versus direct Democracy, too. I dunno.
An outline of a way to get started diaried here.
I wrote to my Governor, and other state reps, Senators, etc., that TV stations should be giving up free time to the political process. At the time Connecticut was working on their campaign reform laws.
Needless to say they didn’t add that part to to their new rules.
I figure that if they want a license to operate a TV station they should have to give it up for free. The problem is that the lobbyists for the TV stations (You know? The people with all of the BIG CORPORATE MEDIA money to donate to politicians…) consider the political season to be very profitable for themselves. They feed off of eachother.
Meanwhile we are starved for real and honest information.
To me, it is the fact that we have let them take away our common property. The airwaves did belong to all of us. Like the national forests. And other commons that have been sent into the hands of the few profiteers. To satisfy some philosophy that the highest and best use of a resource will always be made by someone who owns, and is trying to profit from, that resource. I’d say it is time that we, as a society, pretty forcefully discard that failed idea. Some resources. Some goods. They are best served by community ownership for community benefit. Airwaves. Infrastructure for medical care. You name it.
I’ll settle for a return of the Fairness Doctrine:
I like it Joe, but you’re thinking as if the public airwaves belong to the people. Good luck making a change that threatens anyone’s bottom line to accomplish a public service. It’s hard not to be cynical, but just keep talking about doing the right thing.
Why do we abandon all that good stuff we teach to the kids when we think we’re grown up?
I’m reposting what I said to Connecticut above, because I think it speaks to your comment as well, Alice.
To me, it is the fact that we have let them take away our common property. The airwaves did belong to all of us. Like the national forests. And other commons that have been sent into the hands of the few profiteers. To satisfy some philosophy that the highest and best use of a resource will always be made by someone who owns, and is trying to profit from, that resource. I’d say it is time that we, as a society, pretty forcefully discard that failed idea. Some resources. Some goods. They are best served by community ownership for community benefit. Airwaves. Infrastructure for medical care. You name it.
I loved Schoolhouse Rock. My daughter got to play a lead role in the school play version. It was fabulous and I was thrilled she got a taste of Schoolhouse Rock.
Campaign reform has been on my mind for many, many years. Every election year, millions of dollars are spent on advertising for candidates. Millions that could be spent so much better on the very things the politicos pretend they care about. It makes me sick.
Also, when Schoolhouse Rock came out, our children were still being taught that anyone could become president. We all know that isn’t true. You have to be rich to become president (and white, religious, and male).
So my idea was that there would be limits on what kinds of advertising could occur, a sort of leveling of the playing field. Say, two 30-second spots, one debate which includes all candidates, maybe more, maybe an informercial or two, and a limit of mass mailings. All of these would be paid from the general funds of the U.S. Government. Hahahahaha….not likely, I know.
As I tell my lawyer bosses, I am all about Justice and Ethics, not the law!
I like it. One of the big problems I see right now in getting a truly representative democracy is that it costs so damned much to campaign effectively that ONLY the candidates who either have considerable personal wealth or the backing of big corporate sponsors are able to do so. Print advertising and television time is horribly expensive, and the news media is less than inclusive (or impartial) when it comes to covering candidates, either local or national level. So right now the candidates have to have big donors, which usually means corporate and business sponsors, in order to even compete; and in order to get those donations, they have to listen to the corporate and business lobbyists, who expect to get some results from the legislators they are supporting — and so they only support legislators who support them in return.
And I like the idea of the infomercial — that allows candidates to present themselves and their positions at some length. I don’t want to hear that Joe Candidate is Right for Maryland, Right for America… I want to know where he stands on state and national issues. This is ESPECIALLY important in the primary season, when there are multiple possible candidates from a single party (as we will have for the Senate race next year).
Another gripe I have is that I never see much of anything on the local races — judges, school board, state senators and house reps, county officials — until I actually go to the polls. I think a lot of people keep voting for the one name they know, rather than knowing anything about how that state house rep or even school board member has performed his or her job. Maybe the local papers cover this, but I don’t have time to read them. The occasional flyer I get in the mail (even from my Congressman) is simply soundbites and photographs. If I want to know his voting record (especially the parts he’d rather we didn’t know about), I need to actually research it.
Giving candidates for all offices, even the local ones, access to television (and print) media to present their views and positions to the voters would be fantastic. Candidates for state and federal legislative offices could also be permitted to pool some of their time and have live debates, where they could grill each other, or answer questions from the public (town hall style, open to the public, available tickets divided and distributed through the station and each candidate’s website) in one of the big local high school or university auditoriums, which could be broadcast live and also be available for download or on DVD at libraries or from the station’s website.
I think it would be marvelous, and yes, it would need to be legislated, probably from the top (Congress) down, because the cable station would have to be set up via the FCC, and funded by the government in order to work.