RE: Free air time for candidates

[Reed Davis <rd100@delphi.com>]

> Who pays for T.V. now? The SPONSORS do. Isn't it possible 
> that, if we went to a system of providing "free T.V. time" for 
> presidential candidates, the networks could, in turn, turn to 
> their sponsors to pick up the tab. A major media event could 
> be made of it, with a little creative partnership with ad 
> firms, and they could come up with some cute, catchy, 
> patriotic commercials, like they do for SuperBowl. It might 
> help to attract viewership. I never watch the SuperBowl, but
> I do try to catch as many of the ads as I can, while it's on. 
> I'm NOT trying to be glib! I really think that an idea like 
> this could be a solution to the question of "who pays?" 
>
Still, there is a question as to whether it's right to force the
networks, and, hence, the sponsors, to pay for free air time.
Just as there should be a clear rationale for any new tax,
there should be a clear rationale for mandating free air time.
However, a good compromise might be the amendment that was
passed last week in the Senate that mandates that the networks
offer the time at the current lowest rate.  The rationale here
is that the networks simply will not be allowed to profit
unreasonably from the fact that candidates must run their ads
right before the election.

However, it would seem reasonable to limit the amount of cheap
air time and divide it equitably among the candidates.  The
current system lends itself to something of an arms race, where
more ads are seen as better, regardless of their content.  If
the amount of cheap air time is limited, campaigns might make
somewhat better use of it.  Likewise, if all political ads (or,
at least, those that mentioned an opponent), had to allow a
rebuttal to follow it, they might contain fewer inaccuracies.
We might even be able to get ads that sponsors would be willing
to pay for, as you suggested.

Reed Davis