Olbermann on Letterman: The Priority of Public Campaign Financing
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Apr 23, 2008 9:36am
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann made an appearance on Late Night with David Letterman, and the conversation turned to one of the best arguments for how screwed up our campaign process is and how public financing could allow us to put our money towards other priorities.
Letterman: It’s just god awful. If you think about it, if you compare those amounts of money—and I heard this statistic the other day—to maintain, to maintain status quo of world starvation—that means not improve it…
Olbermann: Yup…
Letterman: …but just for people to hang on, we need $700 million. And these two, have generated more than that already and still people are going hungry.
Olbermann: It would be great, and it would be ideal if we paid for everything. The government would just sort of said, alright, we’re going to give each candidate, who you know met some sort of minimum amount of support gets this much money and gets this much free television time, which is what it’s really all about. I mean, that’s what happened in Pennsylvania, you know where he went from being down by 20 to losing by 10. That’s a pretty good result for him, by spending a lot of money on TV time. But if you just gave away the television time, well, all the networks would get very upset about that. So it’s…you know, really, we are choosing between these two predicaments.
Letterman: There ought to be a way, there ought to be a different way here, because I mean, the length of the campaign—you can understand this, but the sums of money required and at the end of the day, we’re just trying to satisfy somebody’s ego when you get right down to it.
Login or Register to post comments.
Here is a sure cure--in TV/Print media making Kings or Queens--ban all political commercials and make it a punishable crime. This will force media to be nuetral.
Funky cold medina
Well, let's take it one step further...just eliminate all commercials, political or otherwise, and replace them with PRODUCT PLACEMENT. Nobody watches commercials anymore anyway with TIVO and remote control. Use product placement like in the movie "The Truman Show." For example, on "Desperate Housewives" Eva Longoria could use Hillary Clinton brand hairspray. On a "Golden Girls" reunion special, Bea Arthur's elderly boyfriend could use John McCain brand dentures. Or have a telethon to raise money, have a Barack Obamathon. For more views on the presidential campaign go here:
http://jviz.blogspot.com/2008/04/miley-cant-unite-redbluestates.html
This isn't enough!!! Where can I see a clip of the entire visit?
Olbermann's the MAN. Edward R. Murrow would be SO proud of this guy.
Public campaign financing is a great idea, BUT...........
The problem with doing elections this way is that everyone who gets in has an equal chance and a level playing field. Corporate Amerika is not going to allow that to happen any time soon. Currently they pick the candidates you get to choose from by systematically eliminating the competition through large corporate donations which gives their candidates leverage and coverage by MSM. Not so coincidentally, corporations also own MSM and use it to control who gets coverage. If they don’t like a candidate it they simply ignore him/her and if that doesn’t work they can smear them too. It is systematic and designed to elect candidates favorable to those who got them elected. They even have control over who gets to debate on their MSM and can exclude anyone who is a threat to their continuing control over this country. Anyone who believes the system is fair and that anyone has a chance to win is deluding themselves.
Everyone thought slavery was an unnecessary reality until enough people stood up and said, "no". Same with living under a dictatorial monarchy. Same with most societal evils.
There must be a tipping point in consciousness, a sea change in public awareness, a point at which a necessary change becomes "an idea whose time has come", and that no governmental power can stop.
Once this sea change in public awareness occurs, it is the public which will no longer tolerate the unacceptable. And even the harshest dictator can only rule if they people allow.
We have to get there on this issue or we won't survive as a nation. We have to make this change, because the current system of bought politicians is keeping us locked into this facist state of endless war for profit supported by politicians beholden to their corporate masters.
I think Obama gets this better than Billary or McBush, he's the closest one we have right now to even being aware of the inevitablility of this, if we are to survive. But it won't happen because of any one person, it has to be a groundswell of such magnitude that it is unstoppable. And we are going to have to be as willing as the Founding Fathers and the abolitionists not to settle for anything less than the complete wiping out of this corruption. in our system.
I don't know why Letterman said at the end, "You know one thing I didn't realize, you are a LARGE man." Olberman said, "Uh, thanks?" Such an odd thing to say, but I guess it is funny, not.
The networks and cable systems get access to the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves only with the promise that they operate in the public interest.
Seems to me that alone is enough to force them into giving free time to qualified candidates. We just need a decent FCC. Not one run by the bastard Powell's son.
Of course, this is but another aspect of the creeping fascism this country has been subjected to since at least the advent of Saint Ronnie the Reagan.
Its getting really hard to find any humor in what is happening to this country. We need an FDR/TR, not a Harding/Hoover.
Tony from NYC @ 5:
He must have an enormous schwanstugger
Free television commercials to candidates would loosen the hold the Democrats and Republicans have on office.
The corporate media, and the washington politicians do not seem very interested in changing this dynamic.
TakeOurCountryBack - The corporate media, and the washington politicians do not seem very interested in changing this dynamic, are the American people interested in changing it either?
we’re just trying to satisfy somebody’s ego when you get right down to it.
I don't understand this comment. Whose ego?
I used to work for a small newspaper selling display ads. During campaign season I could just about take a vacation because all the candidates were buying lots of large display ads and spending fortunes. They didn't get contract rates because thier ad run did not last long enough, they paid top price for those ads. We had trouble finding enough news to fill the size paper we were putting out due to all the ads. The paper counted on that additional income per campaign season.
I can't imagine how much the tv networks make from all the ads the candidates run today.
It is important to note that Olbermann has said that candidates who have received a "minimum amount of support" should receive "free television time." This, of course, is exactly what did not happen to Ralph Nader in 2000 when the networks and cable executives colluded with the Democrats and the Republicans to make sure that Nader was shut out of the debates in the summer of 2000. The irony is that while Olbermann justifiably points out the injustice of the system, he himself has rarely, if ever, have had Nader on Countdown. Apparently Olbermann is all for the candidates receiving financial and media support as long as that candidate is either a Democrat or a Republican.
The problem with most publicly financed campaigns is they have to be mostly voluntary because the supreme court has ruled that money is speech. They will not restrict any money in the political system because of freedom of speech. If somehow we could get that ruling overturned then we could really make inroads into public financing of elections.
.
.
.
In Canada, there are paper ballots counted by hand and a campaign spending cap. I am so very grateful for this reality.
.
.
.
no kidding pissed off patricia! I remember when I was a kid and used to watch television all the time, the campaign commercials were endless. I am kinda outta the loop now because I am on the Internet now instead of network television...
maybe this will be more of the trend in the future? hopefully this do what the television says is only something that appealed to babyboomers, and the next generations will become less and less reliant on television advertising?
Olberman is not looking at real numbers here. WAR is the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Campaign funding is not the problem. Both parties always pump trillions into the military for killing. LOOK at the NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RayC @ 13:
There is a way around this 'money as speech' claim the supreme court has decided, it would have to be equated with the reasons why bribing public officials is illegal.
Tony from NYC @ 5:
Maybe he's talking about Olberman's soul... There are many commentators out there without souls.
The networks wouldn't like it? TFB. They use PUBLIC airwaves. The Fed Gov could create a "campaign channel" and use it exclusively for this purpose. Take $5 from every tax return and divide it between the candidates, have every primary on the same day, both D and R and all those in between, and select the top candidates that win the POPULAR vote. Get rid of the drawn out process of the Dem primary and delegates as well. The People should decide who THEY want as a candidate, period.
Thrilling
John McCain has said that he is going to rely on the media to get the message out. The corporate media doesn't have a problem playing a negative ad against Clinton or Obama. IMHO that is free advertising for the candidate that puts out the ad. The media should be restricted under the campaign finance laws because they are giving that candidate free advertising.
STOP George @ 14:
Don't spread it around, or the Corporate owned Media will send their witch hunters out in droves to call you commies, fascists, and compare you ro FRANCE!
Is that who it was? I saw the last few seconds of the interview before it went into commercial and I thought it was Dr Drew.
Ron @ 21:
I totally agree. I have already seen the NC 527 ad against Obama three times and each time it was not paid time, but instead a cable news channel showing it for free nationally and talking about it.
Obama has to counter the NC 527 ad. SwiftBoat 2008 has to be stomped on HARD.
Agent_M @ 15:
Television and the internet have converged.
They will become over dependent on the machine.
Ron @ 21:
The policy was written by neocons, and supported by wolfowitz and rummy and Perle. The reason they are called neocons is that they are newly conservative. ie Clinton didn't buy their BS but GW did. The republican party has been highjacked by the neocons.
L.A. Confidential @ 26:
Agent_M @ 17:
L.A. Confidential @ 26:
This isn't a permanent condition but at some point in this century someone is going to reject the electronic tether-leash and cause a big stir.
How much of the financing problem is due to the fact that the traditional media doesn't cover politics fairly or in any depth?
The candidates are havng to pay huge sums of money to get their message out, and here we are talking about free television time. If journalists and the media were interested in giving the public a fair discussion and analysis of the candidates positions on important issues, we wouldn't have this problem. That would be your "free TV time" right there.
We are throwing money at Senators.
If you watched the Senate the last 8 years, they are part of the problem and offered no solutions.
The Senate is corrupt and they all vote for corporate interests.
Hell, in the Gouse the gop are blocking any attempts to lower gas prices. Food riots are breaking out in the world, lost jobs, economy crashing, health care, etc...., they have done nothing.
Never ,ever, trust a politician.
When have they earned our trust?
L.A. Confidential @ 29:
It could also be that in a couple of generations those kids may reject their parents attachment and dependency on "digital" and go back to reading in rebellion and actually become more literate then their gadget addicted parents.
Tony from NYC @ 5:
I had a similar thought about Keith when I saw him walk onto the set. He has grown outward, especially in the stomach.
Keith is an enormous man with an enormous brain and an enormous heart that is getting an enormous audience that he deserves. (And there are stories about his enormous schwanstugger as well...lucky girlfriend.)
Saint Augustine @ 33:
He sure scares the hell out of Billo.
Underground Pirate @ 16:
Well said. It appears that Clinton and Obama and McCain are trying to outdo each in telling the American public who is the most militaristic among them. Obama, for example, the [alleged] agent of hope and change, wishes to actually INCREASE the military by 100,000, while all three of them, as Underground Pirate notes, seeks to add more money to an already bloated military budget, which candidates such as Nader and Cynthia McKinney are strongly against.
Hey Keith...I love ya man, but take some advice from somebody that knows...lose the weight. You're starting to look a bit buffoonish.
katie @ 34:
If only Olbermann also had an enormous tolerance for having on anti-war activists on his program, to counter the appearance of such military "experts" as General Barry McCaffery and Colonel Jack Jacobs, et al, whom Olbermann has had on his program to showcase their views while not allowing an anti-war voice to be seen and heard in rebuttal to what Olbermann's military "experts" have had to say. So much for the non- military perspective being seen on the corporate airwaves by a quasi liberal like Keith Olbermann.
HDon @ 22:
roooth @ 7:
"He's going to be very popular!"
I didn't see KO being a guest on my satellite guide. He must have been a last minute stand-in. Thanks for the clip.
Erroll @ 12:
The Reform Party actually qualified for federal matching funds and they didn't get to go to the debates either. It's not like either of them had a chance of winning. It's just when you close political parties out then they lose their ability to have input into the political dialog. It is a very dangerous thing when the political dialog is controlled by a few elitists. That is how the Soviets did their elections. They had democratic elections for their governments; but, all the canidates had to be Communist Party Members. It's like this in America. We have free democratic elections just like the Soviets; but, all of our canidates have to be from the Democratic or Republican Parties. Does it really matter that you have one party or two parties? When you have only 2 parties; both parties begin talking about the same issues, just on opposite sides. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed. They had serious structural problems with their economy and the politicians didn't want to talk about them; becuase, they didn't have smaller political parties that would throw those issues on the table for discussion.
momly @ 10:
that would be clinton's ego....(or were you being sarcastic)
ie, she has already lost, but yet she keeps on yakety-yakking, pretending she can win.....that's a heck of an ego trip rockstar tour, at the expense of the party definitely, the country maybe
Well they kinda have this in public financing. This at least limits the amount of money which is a start. I just hope Obama decides to take public financing instead of going the traditional political route of not doing the right thing. I know he didn't explicitly promise McCain that he would but that was essentially what he said, hopefully he remains a man of his word.
Wow Letterman the humanitarian.
katie @ 34:
It all goes so well with his enormous ego which is fast getting bigger with every broadcast.
The argument for the public financing of elections is based on the premises of honesty, truth and fairness.
After the past eight years it would be difficult to argue that honesty, truth and fairness are premises that still apply to our failed state.
My argument would ultimately be that the only solution is for us to see, clearly, that in every failed aspect and issue of this country we are, in truth, getting exactly what we deserve -- or, put another way, we are getting exactly what we allow.
L.A. Confidential @ 34:
Farenhrit 451?
Fahrenheit.
If it's broadcast networks we're talking about, it wouldn't be taking time away, it would be taking time BACK. We own the airwaves.
Lobbyists and the FCC have overthrown broadcasting in the past 15 years. The TV/Radio stations were supposed to be a PUBLIC TRUST and provide equal time to candidates...without buying time...to help voters decide. The debates on TV were set up initially in that way. Later, everything was changed and in order to control candidates money became the main issue, not the ability to solve problems and find solutions.
Not really just Ego, the $$$ goes somewjere...hmmm...where does it go...um...
Hate to break it to you TakeOurCountryBack but corporations cannot make political donations on the Federal level. You're confusing companies with Political Action Committees (PACs) that can raise hard money from individuals and make limited donations to campaigns.
katsmeow you're ignoring the fact that the primary process is a way for political parties to select the candidates they will endorse and work to get on the ballot in November. There are laws in place detailing how one becomes eligible to be on the ballot that are separate from the primary process. Nothing stopping you or anyone else from trying to get on a ballot. Political parties are private groups and as such are free to make their own rules for how they select a candidate for endorsement.
Erroll @ 14:
That would require for Olbermann to take Nader seriously. He's proven himself to be, at best a punchline, and at worst a deliberate spoiler for the very causes he claims to espouse. One thing he's not is a serious contender for the White House.
The flipside to Olbermann's argument is that it would inherently favor candidates like Clinton and Guiliani who had high name recognition. It would cut off the individuals donors like the millions who have supported Obama with small donations. While the amount of money involved is obscene, this argument about the money being used to combat starvation or any number of causes could be applied to many arenas; not just politics.
STOP George @ 16:
Oh how I wish the French would have been more instrumental in the formation of the U.S. instead of those damn Puritans!
This was a major campaigning point for McCain in 2000 and he got utterly bitch-slapped for it....neither the dems nor repubs WANT campaign finance reform, they just want to SAY that they do...
raise your hand if you think the subject of campaign finance will come up in a televised debate...anybody? anybody?...i dont think it will either...
slippy toad @ 56:
"One thing he's not is a serious contender for the White House." As opposed to whom, Clinton and Obama, who have sold their souls to the major corporate interests? Clinton and Obama claim to be liberals yet both, as in contrast to Nader, are against the immediate and total withdrawal of U.S. troops from that quagmire in Iraq, thus ensuring that more troops will be filling up hospital beds in the VA system due to soldiers being brain damaged, severely burned, blinded, paralyzed, missing their limbs, suffering from the effects of PTSD. Not exactly the best way to support those troops, now is it?
Clinton and Obama are also against the impeachment of one of the most criminal administrations in U.S. history, both of them are against universal single payer health care in this country, both of them are against the rights of the Palestinians while supporting the Israelis, both of them are in favor of giving more money to the already bloated military budget. Yet slippy toad believes that Clinton and Obama are to be taken more seriously than Ralph Nader. This kind of thinking is straight out of Orwell's novel Animal Farm- two feet good, four feet bad. In this case, candidates are apparently only to be taken seriously if they are either a Democrat or a Republican. A great example of fascism at work in the United States.
Want to take our country back from these new robber barons? #1-The Airways belong to US!! put the control of our airways into the hands of the citizens and then rent them air time under our rules or not at all! Every citizen has a right to honest, fair news and info, without which our system will not work, these criminals have been spinning( same as lie) us for years and years, all the way back to WW2 maybe WW1. They used to do it by controling the newspapers(hearst), then as soon as radio came along, they jumped right on it. Tv is a very powerfull tool or weapon in guiding the mindset of the public, and they have used it masterfully, untill we gain total control of this WMD we will not control our future. This WMD has been used to lead us to wars,spread false or twisted info(hearst used his newspaper to get laws against marijuana because he held large timber tracts and hemp makes better paper-+ you get 7 times more paper from same space) They have used it to hide their crimes,used it to suppress medical cures,renewable energy,hype the war on drugs,the war on gangs,war on crime, now they use it to scare us intio beliving every male in the world is out to fuck our kids--child fuckers,oooooo,WMS,ooooooo,drunk drivers,oooo--300,000 people die in this country every year from PREVENTABLE medical mistakes, no one has ever died, not ever-from smoking pot, yet we dont hear a peep about that! Think we are not controled? All tv is a sales pitch of some sort, watch gma give away a vacation-they own the resort you will go to they own the travel company that will set you up,new clothes for trip? they own that too,limo to airport, meals?yes they own those also, niteclub? theirs to. America,land of the free my butt! opening to Outter limits, Do not try to adjust your tv, we will control all that you see and hear! no truer words were ever spoken. CEO
(A brilliant observation is worth repeating)
Olbermann's belly was sticking out so far, almost popping the button on his XXXXL jacket, I thought maybe he was pregnant with Barack Obama's babies.
Whining impatience with the length of the campaign isn't going to bring January 20, 2009, any sooner.
Let's ask the Democrats in Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Puerto Rico, et al if they think this nomination process has gone on too long.
This is brilliant these two wealthy men discussing campaign finance reform without mentioning that the people who sign their paychecks are responsible for defeating campaign finance reform evertime it comes up for a vote.
The major networks and cable send thousands of lobbyists to DC to destroy reform. This is big bucks for the media and they are not going to let campaign finance reform change that.
Letterman and Olberman end up being the winners and the voters loose everytime!
I am much more appalled by the amount of money paid to unfunny comedians on hopelessly boring network television programs.
HDon @ 24:
Here in FRANCE we ALSO have hand-counted paper ballots, plus spending caps -- AND A LIMIT ON THE LENGTH OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS !!! And hey, we know our outcome long BEFORE any ballots are counted, thanks to ENTIRELY DEPENDABLE EXIT POLLS (unlike in the USA, the only "democracy" where exit polls have been entirely INCORRECT since the elections of 2000. Gee, I wonder why).
Login or Register to post comments.