MPR has scheduled a debate for the Attorney General's race on October 10th. But they haven't invited Papa John Kolstad! Contact MPR and urge them to include Papa John.

Call the Newsroom at 651-290-1424, ask for Mike Mulcahy, his email is mmulcahy@mpr.org

or write a letter:

Minnesota Public Radio
480 Cedar St
St Paul, MN 55101

How can we be informed voters if our publicly funded news source won't inform the public? Contact Mike Mulcahy today!

Debate Discrimination is Undemocratic
by Papa John Kolstad

If the electorate is only allowed to hear from some of the candidates for office, is that democracy? Who decides who the public will hear and who will be shut out? Should publicly subsidize media be allowed to discriminate regarding which candidates have access to the public? Essentially campaigns are job interviews for important public jobs. How do we know we are getting the best, the brightest, the most capable if the public is not allowed to hear from all the applicants?

Minnesota and America are experiencing a major failure of our elected officials to solve the pressing problems of the vast majority of people. A major reason for this is that large, powerful financial interests are controlling who gets elected. Controlling who gets to run and who gets to be in public debates is one of the most effective tools they use. The famous Tammany all politician, Boss Tweed, once said, “...I don’t care who wins the election . . . as long as I pick the candidates”.

Minnesota elections are managed and controlled. The two major parties and the Media control who gets to speak and who gets coverage of their campaigns. This is all subtly done behind the scenes by power players with vested interests, then painted with a patina of democracy and civic pride.

A prime example is the arbitrary and capricious rules for inclusion in debates and forums. Then following the debate, the media only “cover” those in the debates. These rules emerge (and change) mysteriously each election, yet the authors remain anonymous. There is no public forum, committee, or taskforce to examine the issue and there is no public input or review. Yet these rules determine who we will hear and who will be silenced, who will be “viable” and who is not. If the electorate, the public, is not able to hear the candidates speak about their positions on issues, their qualifications to do the job, or their philosophy regarding public policy, then it is unlikely that such a candidate will get many votes. It is my contention that this distortion of the public debate is a major contributor to our poor political leadership.

In 2006 the “anonymous” rule is “Only the Major Parties candidates will be invited to forums and debates. “ This blocks members of the Green Party, regardless of their merit or qualifications. By what mandate, by what authority do these gatekeepers rule? Who are they and who appointed them? Who do they represent?

Most of the debates this season have parroted this rule. In the Attorney General race I have been blocked from all debates. The honorable exception to this is KTCA TPT Channel 2 invited me to the Almanac Attorney General forum. Go to my website, www.papajohnkolstad.org and click on “Papa John Impresses on TPT” and judge for yourself whether I should be in the debates. Exclusion from the debates is then compounded by the media, mostly major papers and radio, not covering the exclude candidates. The public is thus deceived about their choices.

This system is unfair, undemocratic and bad public policy. Personally I’d like to see every candidate who qualifies for the ballot in the debates. If we can tolerate Right Wing talk radio on most of the radio stations every day in this country, then certainly we can listen to those who are running for office and legally on the ballot. It is not a fair and honest election if the electorate does not hear all the candidates. However, if a debate sponsor insists on limiting participation, it must at least be based on fair and objective criterion. Therefore I propose that a Public Taskforce be created that sets objective, fair criteria. My recommendation would be to set eight to ten objective criteria and if a candidate meets any three of them they are included. A great example of this was created by Democratic Presidential Candidate Larry Agran in the mid 90’s regarding Presidential Debates.

An example of how absurd this discrimination can get, Twin West Chamber of Commerce hosted an Attorney General debate and refused to allow me to participate, even though I am the only business person in the race. The reason they gave was the Mantra “Only Major Party Candidates”. When I told them of my extensive business experience of 26 years and dozens of boards, committees, taskforces and council for business, my work on the health care issue, tax policy, I’m a founding member and on the Board of the Metro Independent Business Alliance, and more, I was told the rules were set and there would be not exceptions. The irony of course is that business is supposed to be practical, rational, sensible and focused on their business interests. Yet they accepted a ruling based on what happened in an election four years ago, without consideration of who I am, my qualifications, my experience, my thorough knowledge of their problems, what my issues are, my ability to express them intelligently, and what issues or circumstances are today, 2006. With leadership like this, is it any wonder that business is in such bad shape today? KSTP has also refused to invite me to their debate on their “At Issue” Program.

Now Minnesota Public Radio is denying me an invite to the October 10 AG debate. They too chant the “Major Party” mantra. However, MPR is a non-profit organization that receives public money and other special considerations. What give MPR the right to discriminate? Who are they serving? Does this serve their public members or their corporate sponsors?

This is not just about my campaign or the Green Party. This is about the fundamental undermining of elections and fair and open democratic processes. If we believe we are a democracy, then we should demand that we hear from all our candidates at every forum.

Members of MPR and citizens whose tax dollars support MPR should demand an end to this discrimination. Let’s put the Public back in Public Radio. MPR brags on air that they “inform the electorate” and to stay tuned so you can be “informed”, then immediately censors the information about the coming election. Minnesota deserves better.

The media gives greatly disproportionate coverage to the Major Party Candidates. Then when the elections show large support for Major Party Candidates, then that is used to justify denying coverage of non Major Party candidates in the future. It is a vicious circle and is a rigged system leading to bad governance and gridlock.

A Strib Reporter called me to ask about my campaign. When I started to talk about the health care issue he stopped me and said, “ I don’t want to talk about issues, I want to talk about money”. So if money is what is important, then let us just say who ever raises the most money by say, November 1 is the winner. I may be a wide eyed idealist, but I think elections are about who will lead on good public policy that will benefit the entire commonwealth of the people of MN, not who can raise the most money from vested interests.

We can do better. We deserve better. We must demand fair, open elections and that must include hearing from all those who are on the ballot.

Papa John Kolstad/President, Mill City Music
Candidate for Attorney General/Green Party.