Robert B. Reich

[Plane]

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12385

"...The real scandal in Washington is the everyday bribery that remains legal. I'm talking about campaign contributions given for legislative favors -- a particular provision in this or that bill, an amendment here, an earmarked appropriation there. Lobbyists orchestrate this contemptible process. And members of Congress keep it going because the money buys television time for their re-election campaigns, and television advertising keeps them in power.

The system is out of control. It cost the average candidate three times more to run for Congress in 2006 than it did in 1990, adjusting for inflation. Members now devote most of their time to fund raising instead of representing their constituents.

The number of lobbyists in Washington has doubled over the past ten years. Now, there are 60 of them for every..."

Is the electorate still concerned about the culture of coruption?

[Lanya]

The electorate is concerned when the bill comes due.  They think it only happens when the politicians get greedy. 
It seems to be sort of a permanent fixture. I want running for office  to be publicly financed and very little spent. 
The Fairness Doctrine will help a lot here.

[sirs]

The electorate is concerned when the bill comes due.  They think it only happens when the politicians get greedy. 
It seems to be sort of a permanent fixture. I want running for office  to be publicly financed and very little spent. 
The Fairness Doctrine will help a lot here.

Oh good gravy.....try answering Ami's and Prince's questions(s) regarding the "unFairness Doctrine" Lanya.  Or is the truth just too hard to face up to?

[Plane]

The electorate is concerned when the bill comes due.  They think it only happens when the politicians get greedy. 
It seems to be sort of a permanent fixture. I want running for office  to be publicly financed and very little spent. 
The Fairness Doctrine will help a lot here.

I can't see why anyone likes the fairness doctrine.


If you were to hold forth on your opinions on a TV show , and David Duke showed up ,you would be happy to give him equal time on your own show?

[sirs]

Is the electorate still concerned about the culture of coruption?

Simple Fix.  Full disclosure.  Everyone knows precisely how much a candidate received, and more importantly, who from.  Then we can track with much more accuracy any quid-pro-quo attempts, and make that candidate's office tenure the shortest they've ever seen.  No need for tax payers to be given the bill for yet another DC debacle, and no need to give the mainscream media that much more power with "public financing"

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you were to hold forth on your opinions on a TV show , and David Duke showed up ,you would be happy to give him equal time on your own show?

===============================================================================
I suppose you would say that you wouldn't allow him on the show.

But if we assume that people are basically decent, then they would see through Duke if exposed to his views.

Juniorbush, Cheney and Carl Rove are the most deliberately divisive leaders this poor country has ever had. It has taken six years, but now most Americans are aware of the scumbuckets they are.

Eventually, the truth comes out.

The airwaves belong to the people. Anyone who does not open their studios and micreophones for FREE to ALL the candidates on an equal basis should have their licenses yanked.

They should be available for all opinions of anyone with a constituency to express their views. What we have now is a blizzard of highly expensive totally misleading 30-second splashes of dung thrown by only the candidates with the richest friends.

How on Earth is that an advantage?

[Plane]

If you were to hold forth on your opinions on a TV show , and David Duke showed up ,you would be happy to give him equal time on your own show?

===============================================================================
I suppose you would say that you wouldn't allow him on the show.

But if we assume that people are basically decent, then they would see through Duke if exposed to his views.

Juniorbush, Cheney and Carl Rove are the most deliberately divisive leaders this poor country has ever had. It has taken six years, but now most Americans are aware of the scumbuckets they are.

Eventually, the truth comes out.

The airwaves belong to the people. Anyone who does not open their studios and micreophones for FREE to ALL the candidates on an equal basis should have their licenses yanked.

They should be available for all opinions of anyone with a constituency to express their views. What we have now is a blizzard of highly expensive totally misleading 30-second splashes of dung thrown by only the candidates with the richest friends.

How on Earth is that an advantage?

Would you turn down no one?

Your channell would be giveing equal time to lots of partys and individuls who have tiny public support or intrest.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Would you turn down no one?

Your channell would be giveing equal time to lots of partys and individuls who have tiny public support or intrest.
==========================================================
Right. No one with a demonstratable constituency, determined by petition signatures, could be refused their equal share of free airtime to present their position: Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, Communists, Vegetarians, even Sirs if he could get the signatures.

EVERY channel would have to present equal time to all candidates.

My guess is that the number of people who would want to hear David Duke would vastly outnumber the audience of those who watch infomercials on magic mops, Get Rich in Real Estate Shows and Gazelle Exercise devices.

There would be only a period of maybe three weeks of  campaign commercials on every channel and radio station, before the primaries and general elections. As I said, it would be what they would have to do in return for their license to use the public airwaves.