Rather than being designed to provide for the goal of having an informed voting public, the guidelines agreed to by Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm and Republican candidate Dick DeVos and instead focus on specific details regarding the formatting of the debates rather than addressing larger questions about who has access to the debates and the ramifications of excluding viewpoints from the debates. Instead, the “Agreement Governing Debates and Joint Appearances in Michigan’s 2006 Gubernatorial Campaign” is essentially an agreement between two representatives of a plutocracy rather than a blueprint for a truly democratic debate process. The agreement is not the product of a non-partisan organization with a truly impartial interest in informing the state’s voters, but is instead an agreement between the two candidates’ campaign committees and does not even provide empty rhetoric about how candidates can obtain access to the ballot if they meet some fairly impossible requirements as is the case with presidential debates. The corporate media, who generally excludes third party candidates in their coverage, also agreed to the debate restrictions. The agreement focuses on how the sets will be displayed, how controlled the format will be, what type of refreshments will be in the candidates’ staging areas, and how the debate schedule will be publicized.
The agreement governs not only debates but also public appearances, and restricts the candidates, their spouses, running mates, and campaign committees from making any calls for additional debates or joint public appearences and reveals the extent to which the debates are highly controlled and choreographed. The agreement stipulates that there will be three debates and one joint appearance consisting of three one-hour debates and a joint appearance at the Economic Club of Detroit. At these debates, candidates are restricted from using notes, holding up documents such as newspaper articles, or even wearing lapel pins. The physical environment is similarly controlled, with the size of podiums, distance between the podiums, and the color of the backdrop all being agreed to before the debates. Cameras and camera angles are also outlined, as are restrictions on when the audience can be filmed and how many members of the candidates’ staff are allowed to inspect the stage and equipment used in the debate. Members of the media are required to view the debates in a separate room via closed-circuit television and the debates are not open to a public studio audience, but instead are restricted with no audience in the first debate, an audience eight persons selected by each candidate for the Grand Rapids debate, and a studio audience of “approximately 30 undecided” voters as deemed so by “independent pollster” Tim Kiska for the third debate. Time limits for answers and questions are also agreed upon, and questions by the so-called “undecided voters” in the third debate are to be pre-screened in advance. All of these measures combine to create a debate environment that is stale and predictable, with little opportunity for genuine spontaneity and no serious debate between viewpoints as their would be if third party candidates were allowed to participate.
Perhaps the only redeeming part of the agreement is its second provision, which places restrictions on when campaign ads can be aired before and after the debates. While both candidates have spent millions of dollars on television advertising, the debate agreement restricts this advertising by establishing a 30-minute window before and after each debate during which any station airing the debate cannot air advertisements from the two candidates. Of course, this is a minimal restriction, but with the lack of substantive regulations governing political advertising in Michigan, any break from the daily onslaught of misleading political advertisements should be welcomed. Regrettably, the two debates thus far have not provided many more specifics than what has been shown in the two major party candidates’ advertisements nor has there been any substantive discussion of campaign finance reform during the debates.
Related posts:
