One of the worst aspects of our political system is the corrupting role played by money in election campaigns. Too often, money, not ideas or vision, is now the deciding factor in what voters get to hear and, as a result, who gets elected to our political bodies.
NY1 has taken this a step further. Rather than act as a promoter of greater speech and greater knowledge for its viewers and the public at large, NY1 is effectively acting as a censor: It has decided that the price of admission to allow the voters to hear my views is half a million dollars. Legalized election corruption is getting a huge pat on the back by NY1.
To get on the ballot in New York, you need 15,000 signatures of registered Democrats. We blew past that number with ease, gathering 40,000 signatures from people throughout the state who, by putting their name to our petitions, said they want the opportunity to vote for another candidate, or, at least, hear what I have to say. Unlike most petitioning campaigns in New York that rely on paid workers, the overwhelming majority of our signatures were gathered by volunteers-a grassroots network of people spread across the state who braved the heat and rain to corral voters at fairs, festivals, markets, stairwells of apartment buildings or at the doors of voters' homes.
The first poll published in the race affirmed their hard work. Marist found that 13 percent of the voters would vote for me on Election Day-really an amazing number given that we spent very little money and that, to put it mildly, I was not a household name when I entered the race. Compare that to the Quinnipiac University poll released on February 16 that showed Joe Lieberman leading Ned Lamont by 55 points: 68 to 13. In other words, early in that race, Ned Lamont was polling at exactly the same number I am polling at now
More important, the poll found that 70 percent of registered Democrats believe that the Iraq War should be a major campaign issue; 62 percent of the voters say they will vote for a candidate who is against the war and only 9 percent said they will vote for someone who supports the war. In other words, my position is embraced by a majority of the Democratic primary voters, while the position of my opponent has very little support.
Yet, NY1Ãs position is that the people should not hear me. The network’s political director tells us that NY1 has set a criteria for participation in the debate that it is sponsoring on August 22nd: a candidate has to poll at least 5 percent and s/he has to have spent or raised at least $500,000.
That's right, in our democratic system, half a million bucks is the ante to get your voice heard. We have raised about $150,000 since the beginning of the campaignóbut, though weÃve done An excellent job reaching out to voters given our resources, we are being penalized for not having raised enough money.
What's fascinating is how, at least in this race, money is not a good barometer for support among the voters. In two polls (the Marist poll and the more recent Sienna poll), I am polling higher than Tom Suozzi who is running for the Democratic nomination for governor, runs the second-largest county in the state and has spent $6.2 million. Tom Suozzi is only polling at only ten percent.
NY1-TimeWarner is effectively saying this: it does not matter how wonderful your grassroots campaign is, or how many volunteers are out taking part in the very essence of democracy: working the streets, making phone calls, putting up signs, writing letters to the editor and talking to voters. To NY1-TimeWarner, it matters very little that the majority of the Democratic primary voters actually agree with me on what the voters believe should be the main issue of the campaign: the Iraq war/occupation.
It is the classic anti-democratic conundrum: people can only make an informed choice about who to vote for if they learn where the candidates stand on the issues and what they plan on doing if elected. Yet, the vast amounts of money corrupting the political system are making it impossible for voters to make those informed choices-and the media is aiding and abetting that corruption by deciding, based on financial barometers, who should have a platform.
I should say that I do think there should be some minimal standard by which the legitimacy of candidates is judged. It should be the standard adopted by the League of Women Voters, which has a long, respected role in promoting public discussion of issues important to voters. The LeagueÃs only criteria to appear in its scheduled Sept. 6th debate is that someone pass the legal requirement to get on the ballot i.e., 15,000. After all, gathering that number requires a level of organization and support that isnÃt always found in polls and money. By the way, Hillary Clinton still has not accepted the League's invitation.
I grew up believing in the idea of “one person, one vote†and that a person could get elected if her or his ideas were strong enough and people liked those ideas. It might be that, after hearing us debate the issues, the voters will prefer the incumbentÃs positions over mine. So be itóbut the voters should have the chance to decide, not the political power-brokers and media gate-keepers. Let's take back our country from the big money interests who are buying and controlling our political system.
