From 76150.1170@CompuServe.COM Sat Feb 15 02:10:30 1992 Date: 15 Feb 92 00:23:11 EST From: Stephen Smith <76150.1170@CompuServe.COM> To: Subject: Agran in "In These Times This is the text of an article written by Democratic presidential candidate Larry Agran, which appeared in the February 13, 1992 edition of the publication "In These Times." Permission granted to quote from or reprint excerpts from this article, as long as the text remains unaltered in any way. For further information about the Agran campaign, call Agran 92 at (800) 727-9425. Copyright (C) 1992 Larry Agran In Frank Capra's classic 1939 film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," idealistic freshman Senator Jefferson Smith heads for our nation's capital unaware of the corrupt system that awaits him. He finds all too quickly that the words of Lincoln --"government of the people, by the people, for the people" -- fall on deaf ears, as a few greedy political power brokers usurp America's political system for their own profit. Here in 1992, the American presidential primary process is mired by the same corruption, only it's fact and not fiction. A "good ol' boy" network of political insiders and media moguls determines which candidates are heard and, in many states, which candidates are placed on the ballot. In an age of high-technology "thought control" foreseen by George Orwell in 1984, Americans must act now to take back the electoral process before it is subverted forever. * * * * * I declared my candidacy for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination on August 22, 1991. I issued a bold platform which to date no other Democratic candidate has been willing to touch: an immediate 50% cut in military spending and the transfer of those savings to meet our needs here at home -- health care, education, public safety, environmental protection, and rebuilding our cities and towns. I also brought to the Democratic presidential race a unique and largely unprecedented perspective -- that of a candidate who had served as a local elected official in "America's trenches," our cities and towns. Unlike senators and governors who are politically isolated from their constituencies, most citizens can reach their mayor by phone, or by a visit to their city hall. All I asked -- and indeed all I expected -- from the party and the national media was a chance to present my platform to the American voters. But the media's response ranged largely from apathy to derision. Still, some took note. I was invited along with Paul Tsongas to address the Tri-State Democrats Unity Dinner in Sioux City, Iowa. (At the time, we were the only declared candidates.) The hosts also invited potential candidates Tom Harkin a nd Bill Clinton to speak. All four speakers were treated as equals. My speech was broadcast on C-SPAN with the others, and I was included in the group photo of the candidates. But if you asked the national media, I wasn't even there. The New York Times published a version of the group photo in which I had been cropped out. (As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up." The national edition, Sunday, September 8, 1991, p. 16. I'm standing just off to the right, where the other candidates are gesturing.) The extensive article on the event quoted the other three speakers at length -- two of whom were not even declared candidates at that point. The Times deigned only to mention my presence with one sentence near the end of the report, calling me a "dark horse" candidate. Two weeks later, I was one of seven announced or potential candidates who addressed the Democratic National Committee convention in Los Angeles. Most national media chose to focus only on "prominent" non- candidates such as Jesse Jackson, or on Mario Cuomo who wasn't even there. Soon after, other candidates entered the race, and the national media totally dropped me from their reports. The focus turned to those candidates disdainfully dubbed the "Six-Pack" by the same media who christened candidates the "Seven Dwarf s" in 1988 -- media who were also hounding the reluctant Mr. Cuomo to run for President. With this nationwide media blackout in place, I found that one political door after another was being slammed in my face. For openers, a media blackout severely hampers a candidate's ability to raise campaign funds. After the Watergate scandal, a series of reforms were enacted which were intended to end the undue influence of big money in presidential campaigns . One reform was the introduction of "federal matching funds." A candidate for President can get contributions matched dollar-for-dollar by the federal government, if he or she can raise a minimum of $5,000 from small donations in each of 20 different states. This reform, unfortunately, favors "nationally prominent" candidates -- those individuals who are covered by the national media. If the media choose to ignore a candidate, he or she has a great deal of difficulty reaching potential donors. And because these nationally prominent candidates qualify for federal matching funds first, they can buy air time on TV and radio to enhance their name recognition, further widening the gap for lesser known candidates. * * * * * While the influence of television on presidential politics is a relatively recent phenomenon, the influence of money is as old as politics itself. Corruption and self-interest is as pervasive as ever, but in collaboration with the national media it raises the ugly Orwellian spectre of thought control. The day that I announced my candidacy, my campaign staff contacted the office of the New Hampshire State Democratic Party. We indicated my intent to participate in all state party-sponsored primary events. After some initial cooperation, we found that the state party would no longer include us unless our campaign began to provide "donations" to party coffers. The party planned to hold its state convention on November 2, and was inviting candidates to speak. We were told that I would have to make a substantial "donation" to the state party in exchange for "speaking privileges." I refused. I believe in free speech, not fee speech. After we objected, my staff was told that I would be allowed to participate, although the details were kept vague, despite our repeated phone calls demanding more information. Finally, five days before the convention, we were informed that while those candidates who had donated money to the party would be allowed 20 minutes to speak, I was relegated to a second tier of "minor candidates" who would be allowed only 5 minutes to speak. We also found out through another candidate that a televised presidential candidates' debate was scheduled for the night before the convention. When my staff asked the state party about the event, they denied that such a debate was planned. When we confronted them with the evidence, I was told flat out that "You're not invited." At next day's convention, I watched as all of the so-called "major" candidates exceeded their allotted 20 minutes. When it was my turn to speak, I tried desperately to describe -- in less than 5 minutes -- my "New American Security" proposal for transferring military spending back to the homefront. When I was concluding my speech after 7 minutes, someone shut off my microphone. I continued to speak; fortunately, the party didn't control the C-SPAN feed. Then they began blaring music over the loudspeakers in an attempt to drown me out. Afterwards, I was informed by the state party that in the future I would be excluded from all party-sponsored candidate forums. I tested this arrogant blockade on December 19 at a health-care forum in Nashua, sponsored by the state party. The six "major" candidates were all invited; I was not. The event was moderated by Senator Jay Rockefeller. As Rockefeller began his opening remarks, I stood in the audience and demanded to be included. I said that I had been campaigning in New Hampshire full-time since November 1, I had debated all but one of the other candidates present at forums across the country, and that I had as much a right as they did to participate. Senator Rockefeller informed me that I had to sit down and be quiet or else he would have me removed. I refused, and two police officers quickly closed in on me from both sides. As they began to drag me away, the audience began shouting "Let him speak!" and "Let us choose!" As the public grew more angry, some of the other candidates gestured for Rockefeller to invite me to the dais. Rockefeller reluctantly did so, although throughout the event he continued to cut off my remarks. Afterwards, like a petulant child, he took me aside and growled, "Don't push your luck." About the same time, the Democratic National Committee under the leadership of Chair Ron Brown began a systematic process to exclude lesser known candidates from party events in many states. I learned through an intermediary source that in late November the DNC had quietly dropped me from its mailing list of candidates. I found that I was now being excluded from party events such as the Association of State Party Chairs' convention in Chicago, and the Florida Democratic Party convention. Mr. Brown refused to return my phone calls. Appearing in late December on ABC's Nightline, Mr. Brown said that it was his hope to eliminate all but three candidates from the race after the New Hampshire primary, and to have all but one candidate eliminated by "Super Tuesday," March 10. Apparently, Mr. Brown felt that it was more important for the powerful insiders of the Democratic Party to protect their jobs by quickly choosing their personal champion to oppose George Bush, instead of allowing Democratic voters across the nation to choose for themselves at the ballot box. Once again, this arbitrary exclusion was aided and abetted by the national media. In November it was announced that seven TV networks --CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, C-SPAN, Fox, and PBS -- all had agreed to host one debate each under the umbrella of "Debates '92." Each network retained the sole discretion to determine the event's format and which candidates would be invited, although the series was negotiated with the blessing of the DNC. NBC was first. When I was excluded, I demanded time and again that Bill Wheatley of NBC News tell me his criteria for selecting candidates. After several phone calls from our legal counsel, it became clear there were no criteria; NBC simply selected those candidates anointed by the DNC. When we sent Wheatley documentation regarding the seriousness and national scope of our campaign, he then arrogantly claimed that my exclusion was based solely on his "general news judgment." MacNeil/Lehrer of PBS was second. I had expected better treatment >from the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour than from the privately owned networks. PBS claims a rich tradition of providing alternative, quality programming unbeholden to special interests. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is financed by taxpayer dollars and by viewer subscriptions, so it has a greater moral obligation to provide the voters with as wide an exposure as possible to all serious candidates. I'd been featured twice before on MacNeil/Lehrer. A 15-minute interview by Roger Mudd aired on August 30, followed by excerpts broadcast on September 23 of my speech to the DNC convention in Los Angeles. So it came as a shock to me when Dan Werner of MacNeil/Lehrer informed me in early January that my campaign was not "newsworthy," despite the fact that in two polls taken that week I had moved ahead of Jerry Brown in New Hampshire, and was right on Tom Harkin's heels. Brown and Harkin were invited to the debate, but I was not. Nine days before the MacNeil/Lehrer telecast, I debated four of the "major" candidates at a U.S. Conference of Mayors forum in Washington, D.C. According to The New York Times, "dozens of mayors meeting here today seemed to agree on one thing: the single candidate who truly understands urban needs is Larry Agran." But still MacNeil/Lehrer insisted that I was not "newsworthy." At this point, the future looks bleak for ending the national media blackout. Only one more nationally broadcast debate is planned before the New Hampshire primary -- on Sunday night, February 16, two days before the election. It will be sponsored by the League of Women Voters and will be broadcast on CNN. The League has informed me that "you are not a significant candidate for the Democratic Party nomination" and that they intend to limit participation only "to candidates who present a significant national candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President." In my view, this is an even greater sin than those on the souls of NBC and MacNeil/Lehrer. I have in my hand a letter sent on November 24 to League supporters by Susan Lederman, the chair of the League's Education Fund. The letter solicited a contribution of $300 or more to underwrite the cost of the debate. In her letter, Ms. Lederman wrote: Primary debates are really the most important debates of any election cycle because they allow voters to get to know their parties' candidates ... give lesser known candidates a chance to be heard ... and get citizens excited about the issues that will be decided by their final votes next November. (Emphasis added.) This latest act of exclusion is not only an act of hypocrisy, but also suggests that the League used fraudulent means to raise funds from its supporters across America. * * * * * The final flaw in the electoral process is how candidates qualify for primary or caucus ballots. In many states, the law restricts ballot access by directing the secretary of state, a few party officials, or some committee to have sole discretion in determining which candidates appear on the primary ballot. Typically, the law directs the secretary of state to place on the ballot only those candidates "generally recognized in the national news media." This law places in the hands of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw the power to decide which candidates ultimately appear on the ballot. If the network news bureaus decide that a candidate isn't "newsworthy," then of course the candidate doesn't appear on the nightly news. And as I've found out, if you're not on the nightly television news, you're not a "serious" candidate, as far as certain states are concerned. For example, in Florida candidates can appear on the ballot only if a committee comprised of the secretary of state and party elders approves it. After being excluded from addressing the state party convention in December, it was no surprise that they also excluded me from the ballot. The American Civil Liberties Union took the State of Florida to court, arguing that state law allows a party to censor the ballot. On January 30, federal court judge Federico Moreno ruled that "to force a political party to accept as its standard bearer an individual whose views are not shared by the same party not only violates the party's constitutional freedom of association but would run contrary to the very reason for the existence of a political party." Moreno suggested that an excluded candidate should simply form his own party, as David Duke did in 1988, to get access! This chilling ruling suggests that registered Democrats and Republicans can no longer go to the primary election to choose their party's nominee. Instead, they may only choose among those whom the party bosses designate. If Ron Brown says that you get to vote only for Bill Clinton, you vote only for Bill Clinton. * * * * * It's clear from this sorry track record that only a handful of powerful people are deciding for millions of Americans which candidates they'll see and hear, and which candidates they won't. Even though my name will appear on at least 30 to 40 state ballots, it's possible I'll never be seen or heard in a nationally televised debate. Just as the corrupt Jim Taylor of "Mr. Smith" manipulated powerful politicians and statewide media to keep Jeff Smith's message from being heard, so today do Democratic Party insiders and media moguls bring Frank Capra's fiction to life. We need immediate federal legislation to correct the flaws in this process. I propose these steps: (1) Federal Communications Commission guidelines should require any networks broadcasting presidential candidates' debates to clearly specify their criteria for selecting the participants. These criteria should be available for public inspection before participants are chosen, and should be stated at the beginning of the telecast. The network should also be required to have in place an appeals process, and to state on the air which candidates were excluded and why. Censorship? Hardly. After all, under federal law the airwaves belong to the American people. (2) In this era of cable TV and satellite broadcasts, there's no reason that all candidates can't have access to the airwaves. Federal guidelines could, for example, require cable companies to provide one channel during certain hours to carry taped messages produced by candidates. (3) Any candidate accepting federal matching funds should be required to commit to an open electoral process, by refusing to participate in any forum which does not include all serious candidates. How to measure which candidates are "serious"? It's not that hard. Simply determine which candidates are conducting nationwide campaigns, those that have qualified for the ballot in fifteen or more states. (4) Federal law should establish consistent rules nationwide to determine how a candidate gains access to a state's presidential primary ballot. The law should include a fee covering the state's cost of listing the candidate on the ballot. The voters will take care of the rest. (5) Finally, the Democratic Party -- if it is to be a truly "democratic" party -- must adopt strictly enforced guidelines which limit the party's role to aiding all candidates in their campaigns. No playing favorites, no arbitrary exclusion. The way I figure it, the Democratic Party either fosters free speech and open debate, or it forfeits any claim to the title "party of the people," ready to govern the nation again. Larry Agran, the second Democrat to announce his candidacy for the party's nomination, served for 12 years on the City Council of Irvine, California, including 6 years as Mayor. The Agran '92 campaign can be reached at (800) 727-9425. Donations to Agran '92 can be sent to P.O. Box 159, Irvine CA 92650. Those wishing to encourage Agran's inclusion in the next debate should call the League of Women Voters in Washington, DC at (202) 429-1965. Agran 92 Issues Director Stephen C. Smith contributed to this article.