Open Debates' Victories

Formed in 2003, Open Debates achieved three tangible victories during the 2004 election season and has already influenced the 2008 presidential debate process.

Due to Open Debates' work, for the first time in 16 years, the contract drafted by the Republican and Democratic campaigns -- the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding -- was made public. The American people were able to hold the major party candidates accountable for the sanitized debates they unilaterally designed, and citizens, academic, civic leaders, and newspaper editorial boards across the nation expressed opposition to the direct candidate manipulation. 

Due to Open Debates' work, for the first time in 12 years, a diversity of moderators -- rather than just Jim Lehrer -- posed questions during the 2004 debates. Under unprecendented pressure, the CPD proposed moderators for the first time in its history, and the Kerry and Bush campaigns accepted those four moderators. 

Due in part to Open Debates' work, the television networks refused to restrict their camera shots to the candidate speaking, as required by the 2004 Memoranda of Understanding.  By attacking the debate contract, Open Debates set the stage for the networks to rebuff the candidates' wishes in order to provide more visual information to the American people. 

And in 2008, in order to preempt criticism from Open Debates and its supporters, the CPD made two positive announcements.  First, the CPD declared that for the first time ever, debate participants would ask each other questions during the 2008 forums.  Second, the CPD announced that it would no longer allow the major party nominees to determine how presidential debates are going to be structured.  “The candidates aren’t going to dictate to us anymore,” said Frank Fahrenkopf, co-chair of the CPD.

We hope that the CPD is successful in implementing these changes, but we are skeptical. The CPD exists to host presidential debates that are controlled by the Republican and Democratic campaigns – that is why they seized control of the debates from the League of Women Voters in 1988; that is why they have implemented secret contracts jointly drafted by the major party campaigns; that is why they design candidate selection criteria to exclude all third party challengers; and that is why the organization has been run by former chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties for the last 20 years.

In fact, we are already seeing evidence that the CPD will continue to do the Republican and Democratic parties’ bidding.  The CPD has re-issued candidate selection criteria that no third-party candidate has ever met since the inception of televised presidential debates – that a candidate must reach 15 percent in pre-debate polls to qualify for any of the forums.  This antidemocratic criterion prevents the inclusion of candidates that most Americans want to see, and it is three times higher than the threshold candidates must reach to qualify for taxpayers’ funds.

Moreover, the CPD rejected New Orleans as a presidential debate site, despite evidence that the city had more-than-adequate facilities and widespread popular support.  Instead, for the fourth consecutive year, the CPD chose Washington University in St. Louis as a debate site, in large part because Anheuser Busch will foot the bill. In turn, Anheuser Busch will transform the debate area into a corporate carnival, with Busch-girls distributing pamphlets denouncing beer taxes and corporate executives rubbing elbows with campaign advisors at post-debate parties.

The nation is in need of a new, genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor that will ensure our most sacred public forums serve the public interest.