A Debate About the Debates p.

By: Debra Gersh

Hearing held on two congressional bills that would regulate the presidential election debates
TWO BILLS THAT would regulate presidential election debates have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
H.R. 2003, the National Presidential Debates Act of 1993, introduced by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), would require candidates receiving matching funds to participate in a series of debates both during the primary season and leading up to the general election.
H.R. 1753, the Democracy in Presidential Debates Act of 1993, introduced by Rep. Timothy J. Penny (D-Minn.), addresses the issue of third-party candidates and sets parameters to ensure their inclusion in the debates.
A hearing on both bills produced a great deal of information about the debates in 1992 and issues such as format, sponsorship and third-party candidates.
While opinions were mixed, there was general agreement that the presidential debates have become institutionalized and are likely to play a part in future elections, though not necessarily in any particular format.
In fact, Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), told the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Elections that the legislation was not needed precisely because the debates have become institutionalized.
Becky Cain, chair of the League of Women Voters Education Fund, agreed that debates "are largely institutionalized now" and added that she does not believe "any major-party candidate for president or vice president can safely refuse to participate in a debate in the foreseeable future."
A First Amendment argument against congressional requirements to debate came from Bobby R. Burchfield, a partner in the Washington law firm of Covington & Burling, who served as general counsel to President Bush's re-election campaign and participated in the debate negotiations.
Burchfield's testimony argued that such legislation would have serious First Amendment ramifications.
"Throughout our nation's history, candidates have always been afforded the latitude to determine how they will conduct their campaigns and whether speeches, television appearances, newspaper interviews or presidential debates are the most effective way of communicating their messages," he testified.
"If a candidate exercised his or her First Amendment right to refuse to participate in presidential debates . . . [the legislation] would take away all of that candidate's federal funding," Burchfield pointed out. "This condition therefore violates the First Amendment."
Burchfield also noted that "despite the provisions for public funding of House and Senate campaigns in the bill, the sponsors have not seen fit to vindicate the supposedly important public interest in debates by requiring House and Senate candidates who receive taxpayers' money to debate."
A former official of the Clinton/
Gore campaign, Harold Ickes Jr., former vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also testified against legislating the debates.
Ickes pointed to the "uniqueness of any set of negotiations of debates," which he said would be "virtually impossible to legislate" as well as it being a "mistake for Congress to get into those areas."
"In my view, if Congress does [enact legislation], it should only require debates," Ickes said, cautioning against going any further.
Television news executives from ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC testified before the subcommittee about their experiences with the 1992 presidential debates and the various formats, some used for the first time.
Among those who appeared or submitted testimony were Hal Bruno, director of political coverage for ABC News and the vice presidential debate moderator in 1992; Marty Plissner, political director of CBS News; Tom Hannon, executive producer of CNN's 1992 campaign election coverage; and William O. Wheatley Jr., executive producer of the Brokaw Report on NBC News.
"Regardless of the format used, the important point is to have debates and to make sure they happen on a reasonable schedule in the general election ? with no room for maneuvering, petty squabbling or stalling tactics by the campaigns," Bruno stated in his testimony.
"Televised political debates may be imperfect, but they serve the important purpose of educating and informing the public while encouraging greater participation in the political process," Bruno's testimony continued. "We should be willing to explore all ideas that might help in achieving that goal."
The importance of the debates to the electorate was underscored by Andrew Kohut, executive director of the Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press, who said 70% of respondents to Times Mirror's survey said the debates were helpful in deciding whom to vote for.
In addition, "the debates provide the electorate with the opportunity to form judgments about the candidates unfiltered by the news media," noted Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the Walter Annenberg dean and professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.
"If we could ensure that debates would occur and could know far in advance what the format would be, the process would be improved," Jamieson noted. "If you can find a way to end the debate about debates, a way to ensure follow-up, a way to sustain the attention of the mass audience and a way to increase the quality of candidate argument, then your deliberations will have served the political process well."
CBS' Plissner pointed out that if the candidates are left to decide the specifics of the debates, it not only does not matter who sponsors them but also makes legislation such as that currently proposed "of dubious value."
"If the candidates simply won't come to terms in the many negotiable conditions of the debate, who shall decide which candidate is the unreasonable, obstructive one?" Plissner asked.
"On the other hand, the candidate who really wants to debate can always force the other's hand by accepting all his terms, but you can get debates that way without passing a law."
In addition, changes in the way debates were presented in the last two presidential seasons likely mean more changes are on the way for 1996.
Paul G. Kirk Jr., co-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates, pointed out that "given the rapid rate of technological change, it's entirely possible that we may be looking at options for 1996 that haven't yet been introduced."

Third-party candidates

The subcommittee also addressed the issue of third-party candidates, a number of whom, not surprisingly, supported the idea of requiring their participation.
On the issue of third-party candidates, the subcommittee heard from Arthur R. Block, special counsel to the New Alliance Party; Diana Carlin, an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Kansas; Stuart Reges, national director of the Libertarian Party; and Warren Decker, professor of communication and director of debate at George Mason University.
The Libertarian Party, which opposes the entire system of public funding of campaigns, has "no problem with the idea that a candidate who accepts such money has a great responsibility to the citizens who provided those funds, including the responsibility to debate all viable challengers," Reges testified.
Block, of the New Alliance Party, charged that the major parties and the CPD "abuse . . . statutory privileges," resulting in "unaccountable power that is subsidized by taxpayer dollars."
Block added, "Legislation is needed that requires candidates who receive federal campaign aid to participate in debates; that establishes fair, objective criteria for inclusion in debates; and that ensures truly non-partisan sponsorship."
Among those submitting written testimony was Deborah Green of Ross & Green, a congressional liaison organization representing various grassroots organizations and independent parties; Newton N. Minow, who was co-chairman of the CPD in 1976 and 1980; and former Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who ran for president as an independent candidate in 1976.