Associated Press
Friday, September 27, 2002
Candidates sue media consortium over debate exclusion
BOSTON (AP) Two gubernatorial candidates are suing a consortium
of media outlets for barring them from Tuesday's planned televised debate.
The lawsuit filed by Green Party candidate Jill Stein and
independent candidate Barbara Johnson alleges that the debate violates a state law barring media corporations from giving
free air time to some candidates without making it available to all.
"By inviting just (Republican) Mitt Romney and (Democrat)
Shannon O'Brien to take part in their televised debates, these corporations are giving them preferential treatment," Stein
said. "It's a free, hourlong campaign commercial for the two major party candidates."
The suit, filed in Middlesex Superior Court, seeks to block
any debate that excludes any ballot-qualified candidates.
The defendants include The Boston Globe, WHDH-TV,
WBZ-TV, WCVB-TV, WGBH-TV and New England Cable News. A hearing has been
scheduled for Monday.
Earlier in the week, Libertarian gubernatorial candidate
Carla Howell filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission protesting her exclusion from the debate.
Return to top
The Boston Globe
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
The politics of exclusion
By Eileen McNamara
She had a cup of tea for breakfast, not a bowl of granola
and soy milk. Her feet, tucked beneath the kitchen table in her Lexington home, were shod in sensible but stylish leather
lace-up flats, not a pair of Birkenstocks.
That Jill Stein was wearing a periwinkle twin set yesterday
instead of a peasant blouse made of unbleached hemp would be unworthy of note, except that her Green Party candidacy for
governor been reduced to caricature.
Stein and Libertarian Carla Howell will be on the ballot in
November, but neither was on the stage in Springfield last night for the first televised gubernatorial debate. The
Republican and Democratic standard bearers and the mainstream media sponsors of the debate deemed
Stein and Howell too fringe for prime time. Before voters hear from either candidate,
they've gotten a message: Jill's too tofu; Carla's a gun nut.
The irony of privately owned media companies limiting speech
while broadcasting over public airwaves is not lost on Stein. She drove out to the Western New England College
debate site with supporters last night to protest her exclusion. The decision to limit
participation to Mitt Romney and Shannon O'Brien, she said, only underscores the need for
alternative voices in a political process held captive by big money and
special interests.
"Those who flourish under the status quo have a stranglehold
on the system," she lamented, her discouragement born of long years of advocacy on behalf of public health, the
environment, and campaign finance reform. "If the airwaves aren't open to
other voices, it's a problem for democracy."
The rationale for locking third-party candidates out of
debates - that they lack the support to win - is a circular argument. They can hardly build support if they are denied the
exposure the debates provide. Stein and Howell are not the lunatic fringe; they are on the ballot
because of the inroads their parties have made. Ralph Nader's presidential campaign
garnered the Green Party 6 percent of the vote in Massachusetts in 2000; Howell won 12
percent of the vote in the US Senate race the same year.
But even more spurious is the notion that only the representatives of the two major parties
have anything to contribute to a discussion of the issues confronting the
Commonwealth. If that is the case, why have so many voters tuned out? Despite millions spent in political
advertising, less than 30 percent of the electorate voted in the primaries
last week.
Maybe voters do not want to eliminate the income tax, as
Howell advocates, or adopt a single-payer health insurance system, as Stein proposes, but it would be hard to find a
Massachusetts resident who is not frustrated by the tax code and the quality of health care.
The inclusion of Stein and Howell in the gubernatorial debates could only broaden the
discussion of these and other issues.
Instead of a full explication of the challenges confronting
the state, from the lack of affordable housing to the rise of a two-tiered educational system that provides diplomas to some
and certificates to others, voters get the Blame Game, live. Who made the "mess on Beacon Hill,"
Democrats in the Legislature or Republicans in the governor's office? Who padded
the payroll with more patronage hires, Bill Weld or Bill Bulger?
"We are left with scripted, mock debates at a time when the
public, those who have not given up in despair, are hurting for a real discussion about education, health care, housing,
and issues of social and economic justice," said Stein, 51, the mother of two teenagers and a
Harvard-educated physician, working part-time at the clinic at Simmons College.
Stein spent last night on the outside, looking in. Next
Tuesday, media sponsors of the second debate should invite her and Howell inside, or abandon the pretense that these are
democratic forums.
Return to top
To: Eileen McNamara, Boston Globe
Re: "The politics of exclusion"
From: Chip Ford
Bravo to you, Eileen!
There's little that infuriates me more every election cycle
than the pompous and cynical exclusion of certified candidates from alleged "democratic" debates, yet this behavior is as
predictable as the change of seasons, though it isn't likely to change anytime soon.
Last night I sat in the NECN studio and watched the
post-debate analysis offered by Avi Nelson, Warren Tolman, Barbara Anderson, and Maryanne Marsh. When the question of
debate exclusion was tossed to them by Chet Curtis, only Maryanne Marsh adamantly
supported it, responding "I'm not that democratic," to which Avi retorted something like
"Spoken like a true Democrat!"
So many, especially in the media, perennially love to ponder
ad nauseam the reason(s) for decreasing voter turnout, but never look into the mirror, never ask "could we be doing
something complicit?"
The "circular argument" you targeted is so hypocritically
transparent that it fools none who are paying attention, but it is apparently the best those who control "democracy" can create
... or they'd come up with better. It is desperation on display.
Your point about exclusion over "public airwaves" was on the
money, but more galling still is that last night's affront was orchestrated by taxpayer-funded Public Television,
WGBH. Ah, but who can effectively protest that, when it depends on the
two major parties for a large share of its funding in a fixed game of power. So what difference does my, your, or anyone
else's indignation make in this perpetual struggle?
Unfortunately, I and many if not most voters have pretty
much concluded that the system will not police itself ... and worse, will not allow outside popular forces to affect it. The
myth of "Democracy" is only permitted when it does not interfere with the status quo, when it delivers
up the desired result to perpetuate the myth; and god help it when it trespasses too
impertinently on perceived divine right.
In Massachusetts, alert voters need only look to how their
decisions on ballot questions are defied time after time to realize how little they are respected, how little their vote
matters in the end, how stupid they are perceived to be when it counts -- after, of course, they wittingly
re-elected the incumbent who then disdains their other considerations and
decisions.
While I (and CLT) opposed Clean Elections when it was on the
ballot in 1998, once the voters had spoken we became one of the staunchest supporters of their decision, to the point
of joining in the Coalition for Legislative Reform as its only "conservative" member
organization among some pretty far-left leaning groups. Truly, politics -- and principle --
make for strange bedfellows.
I am an unenrolled voter, for good cause.
I have no horse in this race. None of the candidates have
won my vote, and whoever gets it will earn only a qualified vote. I will likely again cast a protest vote for one of the
excluded. I will cast my vote on principle. It will not be a "wasted vote" like those cast for "the lesser of
two evils."
Sadly, principle is not often rewarded in the politics of
self-interest, especially when for all intent, principle has almost vanished from "say-anything-to-get-elected" politics.
(Jesse Ventura being one of the only exceptions that comes to mind -- and look what happened in
the Minnesota polls after he was included in the debates!) When it raises its head, the
professional politicians and the "major parties" unite to crush it in its cradle. They are unable
to fend it off otherwise, and it scares them, with good cause. Honest competition of ideas is
intimidating.
Chip Ford
Dir. of Operations
Citizens for Limited Taxation
Return to top
The Neponset Valley Daily News
Friday, September 27, 2002
Dedham turnout near top in state
By Peter Hartzel
DEDHAM - A hot state representative primary race among
Democrats drove voter turnout to twice the Massachusetts average in Dedham last week.
It may have been the highest percentage turnout in the
state, an election official said yesterday.
Turnout elsewhere was sluggish, with barely 25 percent of
registered voters casting a ballot, according to unofficial figures from Secretary of State William Galvin's office.
But in Dedham, 7,358 of 15,471 registered voters - more than
47 percent - cast a ballot.
"It's certainly one of the top (municipalities for turnout)," said Brian McNiff, a Galvin
spokesman. He said final figures are expected in October.
Like local observers, McNiff attributed Dedham's unusually
high turnout to the Democratic race for the 11th Norfolk House seat where popular local Selectman Bob Coughlin defeated
four-term incumbent Maryanne Lewis.
In the Republican primary for the same seat, which was also
drew tremendous interest, Joe Pascarella beat Dan Smith. All four are from Dedham.
"I think when turnout is high, it's because people want
change," Coughlin said. His aggressive, get-out-the-vote phone effort helped fuel such a rush to polling locations that
some saw something they hadn't seen in years: lines.
The 11th Norfolk seat - which also serves Westwood and
Walpole's Precinct 8 - was the only legislative seat in which the incumbent faced a contested primary and a primary was held
for the same seat in a different party, McNiff said. Lewis had not had an opponent since
1994.
Turnout for the Sept. 17 primary in Westwood also far
surpassed the state average, with 44 percent of registered voters coming out.
Besides the House contest and statewide races on both major
party ballots, McNiff also attributed interest in Dedham and other Norfolk County communities to contested races for
county treasurer and register of probate.
The Dedham vote far exceeded Town Clerk Geraldine Pacheco's
prediction of 30 percent.
"It's amazing," Pacheco said. "It's good to see them turn
out."
Turnout for general elections is usually much higher than
for primaries, but the Nov. 5 general election is likely to draw about the same number of voters, Pacheco said.
Return to top
