THE COMPROMISED COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

The FAIR site has been redesigned! This page is available for archival purposes only and has not been updated since January 2005. Please update your links. To access the new homepage, go to www.fair.org. You may also wish to visit the advanced search page or the archives page.

FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting 130 W. 25th Street New York, NY 10001

The Compromised Commission on Presidential Debates

Why Do TV Networks Allow It to Decide if the Two Major Parties Will Face Competition?

August 29, 2000

As the debate over debates heats up, the Bush campaign is balking at participation in the events proposed by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Bush's concerns revolve around format and venues. But few journalists covering this story have looked into the legitimate questions about the Commission, especially whether the CPD is independent enough to decide which candidates get to participate.

The following timeline reveals a history of politicking, insider-dealing and exclusion camouflaged behind "nonpartisan" rhetoric. Journalists should ask the TV networks why they are ceding authority to decide whether Democrats and Republicans face competition to a Commission so beholden to the two major parties.

Debates are crucial to the functioning of a democracy. Recent history shows that third-party candidates bring fresh issues and viewpoints to debates, as well as new viewers and voters. Shouldn't decisions about who participates in debates be made by journalists and genuinely nonpartisan civic organizations -- not by the two most powerful parties themselves?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

1985: DEBATES OR "JOINT APPEARANCES"
The origins of the CPD can be traced to 1985 discussions between the national chairs of the Democratic and Republican parties, Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, which led to an agreement to cooperate in the production of "nationally televised joint appearances conducted between the presidential and vice-presidential nominees of the two major political parties…. It is our conclusion that future joint appearances should be principally and jointly sponsored and conducted by the Republican and Democratic Committees." (Joint Memorandum of Agreement on Presidential Candidate Joint Appearances, 11/26/85)

1987: "STRENGTHEN THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM"
At a Feb. 18, 1987 news conference in Washington, GOP chair Fahrenkopf and Democratic chair Kirk announce the CPD's formation, with themselves as co- chairs (positions they still hold). "Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates…was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates," reports the New York Times ("Democrats and Republicans Form Panel to Hold Presidential Debates," 2/19/87). "Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates." "As a party chairman,'' says Kirk, ''it's my responsibility to strengthen the two-party system." ("The Debate Debate," New York Times, 2/22/87)

1988: OUT OF THEIR LEAGUE
The CPD takes complete control of the debates, after the League of Women Voters refuses to let the Republican and Democratic campaigns dictate terms of the 1988 events and ceases cooperating with the Commission: "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates…because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public." (League news release, 10/3/88)

1992: RECORD–BREAKING AUDIENCES
After the Clinton and Bush campaigns negotiate a behind-the-scenes deal that includes the participation of Ross Perot (each side calculating that his presence would benefit them), the CPD invites Perot to the debates. At the time of the invitation, his standing in the four major polls averages between 7 and 9 percent support ("Tentative Deal Set On Debates," Washington Post, 10/2/92; polls from CBS/New York Times, NBC, ABC, Gallup/CNN/USA Today). The three presidential debates are watched by record-breaking TV audiences, averaging 90 million viewers, with the audience growing for each successive debate.

1996: "NON-EVENT"
Perot is excluded in a two-party deal sanctioned by the CPD, according to George Stephanopolous. The Clinton aide revealed his campaign's negotiations with the Dole campaign in a February 1997 panel discussion on the '96 election ("Campaign for President: The Managers Look at '96," Harvard University Institute of Politics).

STEPHANOPOLOUS: "[The Dole campaign] didn't have leverage going into negotiations. They were behind. They needed to make sure Perot wasn't in it. As long as we would agree to Perot not being in it, we could get everything else we wanted going in. We got our time frame, we got our length, we got our moderator."

CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Why didn't you have the debates when people were watching the election?"
STEPHANOPOLOUS: "Because we didn't want them to pay attention. And the debates were a metaphor for the campaign. We wanted the debates to be a non-event."

The 1996 debates have shrinking audiences that average 41 million viewers, less than half that of the '92 debates.

2000: 15 PERCENT BARRIER ANNOUNCED
The CPD announces that it will exclude candidates from presidential debates unless they have 15 percent support in national polls on the eve of the debates (CPD news release, 1/6/00). Such a threshold would have barred Perot from the 1992 debates (he finished with 19 percent of the vote), and would have excluded Reform candidate Jesse Ventura from the 1998 gubernatorial debates in Minnesota (at 10 percent in polls before the debates, he won the election with 37 percent).

More about Open Debates 2000: www.fair.org/debates.html