SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Leaked Documents Reveal "Monopoly-Like" Control of Presidential Debates
Two party agreement stultifies debates and encroaches on open democracy, say critics
Oct 16, 2012
Following the release of the official 'memorandum of understanding'--the agreement signed by both the Romney and Obama campaigns that governs the presidential and vice presidential debates--critics say the document reveals the contrived nature of the nationally televised forums and highlights how the Commission on Presidential Debates has come to gain 'monopoly-like' control over what should be a more open and democratic process.
Time magazine's political correspondent Mark Halperin obtained the document (see below) and released it Monday, making it the fourth time that a version of the otherwise secretly negotiated document has been leaked to a member of the press during an election season.
Among many revealing points, the agreement specifically says--as Firedoglake's Kevin Gosztola also points out--that during a townhall style debate (like the one hosted by CNN's Candy Crowley Tuesday night), "the moderator will [review all audience] questions and eliminate any questions that the moderator deems inappropriate." Additionally, the document stipulates:
If any audience member poses a question or makes a statement that is in any material way different than the question that the audience member earlier submitted to the moderator for review, the moderator will cut off the questioner and advise the audience that such non-reviewed questions are not permitted. Moreover the Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut off the microphone of any such audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement differently than that previously posed to the moderator for review.
The agreement is adhered to by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, as Gosztola says, "wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters back in the 1980s."
Speaking on Democracy Now!, George Farah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates, points out that this year's agreement, like all others previous, was hidden from public view, and only came to light (like the others in debate history) after being leaked to the press.
Arguing the document gives the CPD "a de facto monopoly over our most important election forums," Farrah said:
First and foremost, the contract actually says that the candidates cannot participate in any other debate with any other candidate and the other sponsor. We had 27 Republican primary debates. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated seven times in 1858, but we're only having three presidential debates, precisely because the candidates have contractually prohibited themselves from participating in any other forum.[...]
Instead of allowing other organizations, like the League of Women Voters, to host exciting debates that might include some possible third-party voices, the commission is in total control of this process and allows the Republican and Democratic nominees to negotiate these very kinds of detailed contracts that eliminate spontaneity from some of the formats and exclude all viable third-party voices.
Watch the full Democracy Now! segment here:
Here's the full agreement:
The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns
# # #
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Following the release of the official 'memorandum of understanding'--the agreement signed by both the Romney and Obama campaigns that governs the presidential and vice presidential debates--critics say the document reveals the contrived nature of the nationally televised forums and highlights how the Commission on Presidential Debates has come to gain 'monopoly-like' control over what should be a more open and democratic process.
Time magazine's political correspondent Mark Halperin obtained the document (see below) and released it Monday, making it the fourth time that a version of the otherwise secretly negotiated document has been leaked to a member of the press during an election season.
Among many revealing points, the agreement specifically says--as Firedoglake's Kevin Gosztola also points out--that during a townhall style debate (like the one hosted by CNN's Candy Crowley Tuesday night), "the moderator will [review all audience] questions and eliminate any questions that the moderator deems inappropriate." Additionally, the document stipulates:
If any audience member poses a question or makes a statement that is in any material way different than the question that the audience member earlier submitted to the moderator for review, the moderator will cut off the questioner and advise the audience that such non-reviewed questions are not permitted. Moreover the Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut off the microphone of any such audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement differently than that previously posed to the moderator for review.
The agreement is adhered to by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, as Gosztola says, "wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters back in the 1980s."
Speaking on Democracy Now!, George Farah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates, points out that this year's agreement, like all others previous, was hidden from public view, and only came to light (like the others in debate history) after being leaked to the press.
Arguing the document gives the CPD "a de facto monopoly over our most important election forums," Farrah said:
First and foremost, the contract actually says that the candidates cannot participate in any other debate with any other candidate and the other sponsor. We had 27 Republican primary debates. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated seven times in 1858, but we're only having three presidential debates, precisely because the candidates have contractually prohibited themselves from participating in any other forum.[...]
Instead of allowing other organizations, like the League of Women Voters, to host exciting debates that might include some possible third-party voices, the commission is in total control of this process and allows the Republican and Democratic nominees to negotiate these very kinds of detailed contracts that eliminate spontaneity from some of the formats and exclude all viable third-party voices.
Watch the full Democracy Now! segment here:
Here's the full agreement:
The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns
# # #
Following the release of the official 'memorandum of understanding'--the agreement signed by both the Romney and Obama campaigns that governs the presidential and vice presidential debates--critics say the document reveals the contrived nature of the nationally televised forums and highlights how the Commission on Presidential Debates has come to gain 'monopoly-like' control over what should be a more open and democratic process.
Time magazine's political correspondent Mark Halperin obtained the document (see below) and released it Monday, making it the fourth time that a version of the otherwise secretly negotiated document has been leaked to a member of the press during an election season.
Among many revealing points, the agreement specifically says--as Firedoglake's Kevin Gosztola also points out--that during a townhall style debate (like the one hosted by CNN's Candy Crowley Tuesday night), "the moderator will [review all audience] questions and eliminate any questions that the moderator deems inappropriate." Additionally, the document stipulates:
If any audience member poses a question or makes a statement that is in any material way different than the question that the audience member earlier submitted to the moderator for review, the moderator will cut off the questioner and advise the audience that such non-reviewed questions are not permitted. Moreover the Commission shall take appropriate steps to cut off the microphone of any such audience member who attempts to pose any question or statement differently than that previously posed to the moderator for review.
The agreement is adhered to by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which, as Gosztola says, "wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters back in the 1980s."
Speaking on Democracy Now!, George Farah, author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates, points out that this year's agreement, like all others previous, was hidden from public view, and only came to light (like the others in debate history) after being leaked to the press.
Arguing the document gives the CPD "a de facto monopoly over our most important election forums," Farrah said:
First and foremost, the contract actually says that the candidates cannot participate in any other debate with any other candidate and the other sponsor. We had 27 Republican primary debates. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated seven times in 1858, but we're only having three presidential debates, precisely because the candidates have contractually prohibited themselves from participating in any other forum.[...]
Instead of allowing other organizations, like the League of Women Voters, to host exciting debates that might include some possible third-party voices, the commission is in total control of this process and allows the Republican and Democratic nominees to negotiate these very kinds of detailed contracts that eliminate spontaneity from some of the formats and exclude all viable third-party voices.
Watch the full Democracy Now! segment here:
Here's the full agreement:
The 2012 Debates - Memorandum of Understanding Between the Obama and Romney Campaigns
# # #
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.