Last updated on 2020-07-09
Scott Ehrisman is right: KELO-TV’s criteria for qualifying to appear in a televised candidates’ debate are crapola.
KELO-TV excluded Libertarian George Hendrickson and independent/LaRouche Ron Wieczorek from last night’s Congressional candidates’ debate. KELO-TV justified their exclusion of half of the voters’ choices with a puffed-up list of criteria from their owner Nexstar Media Group making it harder to qualify to be on TV than it is to qualify to run for office… because appearing on television is a far greater privilege than serving the public in elected office.
KELO-TV, get over yourself.
The focus of Ehrisman’s disgust is the absolute requirement that, no matter what, a candidate on the statewide ballot must have raised and reported at least $50,000 in cash contributions, at least 25% of which must come from in-state donors.
I recognize that fundraising is reasonable evidence of the viability of a campaign. However, a big campaign war chest can also simply signal that you have a few rich string-pulling friends who want to maintain their grip on power. However, the lack of $50,000 in reported cash contributions by October 19 may simply signal many other things about perfectly viable statewide candidates:
- A statewide candidate may have entered the race in March, faced no primary, and thus not yet have filed any campaign finance report. Our pre-general reports aren’t due until October 22. In 2014, this was Democratic gubernatorial candidate Susan Wismer, who entered the race late, raised only $23K pre-primary, and didn’t file another campaign finance report until October 24.
- A statewide candidate may have been nominated at convention in the summer and thus not yet have had to file any campaign report. This year, in the sub-Governor offices, this is everyone but our Attorney General candidates.
- A candidate for state office or Congress may be buying no media and simply driving on her or his own dime to every town in the state to talk face-to-face with voters.
- A candidate may have a large group of dedicated volunteers making in-kind contributions of highly effective canvassing time, card and poster printing, house parties, letter-writing, and other outreach efforts.
- A candidate may be running an entirely effective online campaign, making herself available for two or three hours every night for freewheeling public video town halls, Reddit-style “Ask Me Anything” text chats, and attention-grabbing Twitter and Facebook posts.
KELO-TV is effectively saying there is only one way to win a campaign: be a traditional candidate who raises lots of money… and, of course, is in a position to spend that money buying ads from KELO-TV.
KELO imposes a number of other arbitrary standards on candidates. They require that candidates satisfy all seven of these criteria:
- A campaign headquarters with a paid and/or volunteer staff that is open to the public during business hours. For the purposes of this subsection, a campaign headquarters may not be a private residence, but may be a business address used primarily for non-campaign purposes; and
- A campaign phone line; and
- A publicized, dedicated candidate-specific website or web page; and
- Planned in-district appearances or invitations to appear and/or speak at public gatherings; and
- Monetary contributions and a campaign treasurer; and
- Campaign literature; and
- Press coverage identifying the candidate as a candidate in the current election by at least eight unique news reports in media (e.g. newspapers, TV, cable news, radio, or online news websites that are recognized by local and/or national media) [Kelli Volk, “Why Two Candidates Won’t Be Participating in the KELO-TV House Debate,” KELO-TV, 2018.10.19].
Why must a candidate acquire an office? What if a candidate decides that she can run a campaign perfectly effectively from her kitchen table and apply her campaign funds to more valuable outreach? What if instead of opening up a whole separate office, a candidate recognizes the value of synergy and helps each county party open an office for volunteering, handing out signs and literature, and hosting events to benefit every candidate on the ticket, state and local? What if a candidate says the Internet overrated and has just a Facebook page or a free WordPress page with no updated content? What if a candidate can’t get press coverage in eight different reports because (x) the various media outlets are all imposing stupid rules like KELO-TV’s to exclude third-party and no-party candidates and (y) the press is too busy covering football games and the crime of the week to put reporters on the political beat? (Note: if I’m not mistaken, my local paper has done no articles dedicated to the District 3 Senate race and just one about a combo District 1+2+3 candidate forum, while the two local radio stations have each scheduled just one interview with the candidates, two weeks before the election.)
KELO-TV then gives unpopular or lazy incumbents a way out of a couple of those criteria. If a candidate got more than 20% of the vote in an election for comparable office in the last four years, KELO-TV excuses the candidate from two of the seven criteria. That’s more bias toward incumbents and against newcomers. Why should the press make it easier for a past candidate to get airtime than a newcomer? Do they also charge newcomers higher ad rates?
The only good thing I read in KELO-TV’s rules is their unprecedented use of (x) and (y) as opening list headers:
A candidate must be legally qualified and (x) listed on the ballot for the office the candidate is seeking or (y) be a write-in candidate who meets all of the legal qualifications required… [Volk, 2018.10.19].
Lettering your list starting with (x) is a nice bit of fairness toward the letters that don’t usually get to be at the front of the line. KELO-TV should extend the same fairness to newcomer candidates who are running honest but can’t afford to be paying KELO-TV customers yet.
KELO canceled the 2014 GOP primary debates with some real lame excuses. Incidentally Rounds and Rhodent dodged 4-5 others and did NOT want the KELO debates.
I have no respect for candidates who dodge debates.
Shame on Kelo-Jello Land. In Afghanistan a few hours ago, there was this “”Afghan elections rocked by bombings leaving dozens dead or wounded
News›World›Middle East
image
Afghanistan
Afghan elections rocked by bombings leaving dozens dead or wounded
The Taliban issued several warnings in the days leading up to the poll, calling on candidates to withdraw from the race and for voters to stay home
PUBLISHED : Saturday, 20 October, 2018, 11:11pm
UPDATED : Saturday, 20 October, 2018, 11:12pm
COMMENTS:
Agence France-Presse
Agence France-Presse
2SHARE
PrintEmail
RELATED TOPICS
Afghanistan
Islamic militancy
Related Articles
US Ambassador to Afghanistan the Honorable John Bass, Secretary of Defence James Mattis and Army General Scott Miller in Kabul. Mattis on Friday said it was too soon to say if the death of General Abdul Razeq, the police commander in southern Kandahar. Photo: Tribune News Service
MIDDLE EAST
Afghanistan in shock after death of powerful police commander
19 Oct 2018
Abdul Raziq, police chief of Kandahar, was killed and six of his bodyguards wounded. Photo: AFP
RUSSIA & CENTRAL ASIA
Gunman opens fire on Afghan-US security meeting, killing top policeman
19 Oct 2018
The Taliban has warned candidates to withdraw from the ballot, which it has vowed to attack
RUSSIA & CENTRAL ASIA
Afghanistan: where running in elections makes you a bomb target
18 Oct 2018
More than 130 Afghans were killed or wounded in poll-related violence on Saturday, officials said, as the legislative election turned chaotic with hundreds of polling centres failing to open and voters queuing for hours.
Most of the casualties were in Kabul, where at least four people were killed and 78 wounded in multiple explosions, acting health ministry spokesman Mohibullah Zeer said, after the Taliban warned voters to boycott the ballot “to protect their lives”.
Election organisers, who have been skewered over their shambolic preparations for the long-delayed ballot, said they would extend voting until Sunday for 360 polling centres after hiccups with voter registration lists and biometric verification devices caused lengthy delays.”
17 years of American and NATO blood and treasure, and still no protection. The least we could do in America is to promote the vote as we see how people are dying to be able too do just that. Jello Land, you are a farce to free speech and the rights of the people to hear different view points.
Fairness needs to be extended to the voters. Given the time constraints and the complexity and number of issues, candidate viability seems a reasonable standard for deciding who gets to debate. Hendricksen’s essentially irrelevant presence and Wiecozorek’s time-consuming, repetitious, rambling–and mostly incoherent–intrusions into the SDPB debate was unfair to the vast majority of voters who will decide the election between Johnson and Bjorkman.
Scott & you are fundamentally correct: a) the $50k threshold is arbitrary and ridiculous, and b) that KELO would be better us and itself to drop their hubris.
It is the province of the 4th estate to not give a megaphone to all voices. There are many nuts out there. Many voices filled with hate. Many voices filled with lies. Even some in an established party funded by more than the $50k threshold. A better coverage/debate metric may be a rating threshold in polls, or a lie threshold, or a hate speech – fighting words speech threshold.
KELO obviously is pro British Free trade, and anti-cannabis.
Both John T. and John raise points worth considering.
I agree that a four-way debate is unwieldy. That by itself could justify going to the top-two primary system: put all candidates on one ballot on Labor Day, top two vote-getters advance to general in November. Then all debates in the general campaign are between two candidates, voters have a clear choice, and the winner will have a majority, no matter what.
Tsitrian notes the lack of substance provided by the two underdogs in the SDPB debate. Second John notes correctly that the press may exercise discernment in handing its megaphone to speakers. Do KELO-TV’s criteria really discern between substance and distraction, or do they simply gloss over the fact that KELO-TV is choosing not to exercise real journalistic discernment?
I’m intrigued by Second John’s suggestion of content-based criteria. He may be offering the biggest media a way to impose accountability on the candidates before the election. Imagine if KELO-TV said to all of the candidates, “We’re going to review every ad and every statement you make from the time you make the ballot to the time of our debate. We’re going to publicize every lie you tell. Tell five lies (and each time you repeat the same lie counts as a new strike), and we won’t invite you on air for our debate.” Could we get a fair ref to call those strikes?