If you’re in the market for an antique political party that, despite having a great deal of wear, has had millions of dollars invested in it by its previous owners, you’re in luck:
“The Republican National Committee is considering sanctioning the GOP presidential primary debates and then selling the broadcast rights to news outlets.”
This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, it reduces the electoral process to a consumer product. If you thought that campaigning was like selling soap before, you aint seen nothin’ yet.
This repulsively misguided proposal turns the debates into profit centers for the party. How exactly do they market them? Do they sell exclusive rights to media organizations they favor? Do they license the program to all takers who will pay the fee? Do they post it on eBay and sell to the highest bidder? Perhaps they could go the infomercial route and partner with retailers who can sell campaign buttons, t-shirts, and commemorative plates during the breaks.
Would the fee include the right to designate debate moderators? Would the licensee be able to write the questions for the candidates? What other privileges come with the broadcast rights? Could the they compel the candidates to do promotions? Could they program the debate as the lead-in to a their new Shelley Long sitcom or CSI: DC?
How would the party and the broadcaster account for the payment? Would it be considered a political donation? If so, there are Federal Election Commission limits as to how much can be exchanged. And what’s to stop a partisan media conglomerate from offering to pay a license fee for multiple stations, papers, and Internet sites, in an effort to funnel cash into the party?
What’s next? How about “naming rights” like sports arenas? Maybe the “Citibank Republican Party” or the “GO ‘Daddy’ P.” Perhaps they could sell product placements or get the candidates to make testimonials. Burger King could give away tickets to the debate with every Whopper in a cross-promotion with what Republicans fill their stump speeches with.
Even better, why not just sell the party outright? I’m sure Rupert Murdoch would love to add it to his corporate empire that already owns notable Republican businesses like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Although based on their current business relationship, that may just be redundant. After all, Murdoch already employs multiple prospective GOP presidential hopefuls, as well as former House Speakers and Cabinet secretaries.
If the RNC goes through with this they will be affirming their distaste for ethics and their affinity for corruption. They will be ending once and for all any argument that they are not shills for corporate cronyism and greed. Only today’s modern, tea-stained, Republican Party could even contemplate such an asinine plan. I can’t wait to see what they come up with next.
I thought the GOP was already bought…
Wouldn’t this diminish their debate coverage? Whatever network has the rights I presume would be the only one broadcasting the event(more than likely fox). Instead of the debates being a public interest event it will be diminished to a commercial event. These things don’t get much in ratings anyway. I just don’t see the advantage for the republicans in this, except to raise a few million dollars which they don’t need anyway, since citizens united.
The RNC is presently $22 million in the red, thanks to former chair Michael Steele.
I agree Randy. People usually just watch the nomination speeches and watch the balloons drop. Sell the broadcast rights? Isn’t it usually a fight to get whatever networks carry it to show more than the nomination speeches? And the balloons? Fuckin love those balloons man.
This is an hilarious consequence of the elimination of the “fairness Doctrine” by the Reagan Administration.
From Wiki: “In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by an Executive Order from Ronald Reagan.”
Part of Karl Rove’s “permanent Repub majority”.
The Federal budget is probably the strongest statement of US priorities that we have. In a democracy, It should reflect the wishes of the people, but, according to polls, it doesn’t.
Republicans are determined to make it smaller and they have specific ideas how to do it. First, they intend to gut those programs that they do not like anyway: Health Care reform, Public Broadcasting, the EPA, Planned Parenthood, and they are pretty sure that they will need to find savings in Social Security, and other social programs. They object to new spending for infrastructure…which we need to stay safe and competitive. They oppose net neutrality. They seem determined also to lay off public employees, and they are keen to break unions. (The right to join a union is one promised by the UN declaration of Human Rights.) So will layoffs, cuts to public programs, union busting, improve the number of available jobs, the economy, or the well-being of people ? Certainly not.
Continued at http://www.seconnecticut.com/budget.htm