Sunday, October 17, 2010

What I wish I could hear today on Meet the Press or This Week

I don’t hold out any hope for wish fulfillment, but a girl can dream. I dream of a mainstream interviewer who goes like a riled-up terrier, or like Tim Russert, after a simple answer to a narrow question, brooking no generalizing or subject changing.

For today the question is about the campaign contributions maneuver which has been enabled by the Citizens United case. I would love for interviewers—who are supposed to ferret out answers to the questions citizens have on their minds—to drill down to one important question, and demand a straight answer. I want Christiane Amanpour and David Gregory and the other Sunday talk hosts to ask GOP candidates and strategists: ”Is it OK for groups to anonymously fund elections?”

Here are the answers the hosts should view as a dodge and a signal to ask again, even if it eats into the time they have allotted for the next question:

- “The Disclose Act isn’t as simple as just requiring disclosure.” Host, you interrupt and say, “I didn’t ask about the Disclose Act; I just want to know if you think secret funding is alright.”

- “Look, the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t support foreign governments, that’s ridiculous.” Host, you interrupt and say, “We are not talking about foreign sources or the Chamber right now. All I want to know is do you think secret funding is alright.”

- “Karl Rove is being vilified by desperate Democrats trying to change the subject.” Host, you say, “Sounds like you are changing the subject. The question was, ‘Do you think it’s alright for campaign contributions to be secret?‘“