Is the influence of TV an unconstitutional means test for public office?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Is the influence of TV an unconstitutional means test for public office?

I believe it is.

[Gabu]

Is what a what?

[© tweed]

Is what a what?

^^^^^^^^^^^

Please elaborate/rephrase, Bandit.

[Alcon]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean...

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What I mean is, does TV exercise such influence on elections that it raises constitutional questions? For one thing, running a competitive campaign can be cost-prohibitive because of ad rates. For another, the attitudes of the TV industry itself tend to keep outsider candidates from receiving nearly as much coverage as more established candidates.

[Alcon]

What I mean is, does TV exercise such influence on elections that it raises constitutional questions? For one thing, running a competitive campaign can be cost-prohibitive because of ad rates. For another, the attitudes of the TV industry itself tend to keep outsider candidates from receiving nearly as much coverage as more established candidates.

Which part of the Constitution is involved here?

[MODU]

As the question is phrased, no, it's not unconstitutional.  It might be unfair for poorer campaigns (like most of your third parties), but it's not unconstitutional.

[Emsworth]

The Constitution only restricts actions by the government. It does not restrain the activities of private individuals or institutions. Obviously, the federal government cannot establish a de jure property qualification for candidates. However, if a de facto property qualification arises due to the influence of television companies, then the Constitution is not violated.

Even if the federal government wanted to restrict the ability of television to influence elections, it would not have the power to do so. The television is a part of the press, and any ban on television advertising (like a ban on newspaper advertising) violates the free press clause.

[angus]

Is the influence of TV an unconstitutional means test for public office?

I believe it is.

I think you may be confused a bit.  I think you're confusing fairness with constitutionality.  For example, those who listened on the radio to the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960 thought Nixon won, but the many who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won.  The fact is Nixon is ugly and Kennedy is pretty.  Now, it may not be fair that Kennedy is pretty and Nixon is ugly, but the constitution says nothing about fair.  You could make all sorts of similar arguments about Democrat/Republicans versus poor third parties.  It may not be fair that the Democrats and Republicans are rich and therefore control the press, but it's just a fact of life.  Just because life isn't "fair" doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.  Some are rich, some are poor.  Some are pretty, some are ugly.  Just the way it is.  Nothing unconstitutional about that.  I vote NO.

What would be blatantly unconstitutional, as I understand it, is to say that since the rich Democrat and Republican parties control the press, we're going to limit their ability to make commercials, by law.  That I believe violates the free press clause.  And maybe free association as well.

[Citizen James]

No,

It's shameful that many candidates view the people as so dimwitted as to be seriously influenced by 30-second spots.   Then again, we always end up getting the politicians we deserve when people actually rely on such shallow minded rhetoric rather than researching the candidates and issues.

[opebo]

Just because life isn't "fair" doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.  Some are rich, some are poor.  Some are pretty, some are ugly.  Just the way it is.  Nothing unconstitutional about that.  I vote NO.

You are correct that the qualities you mention are not covered by the constititon (an over-rated document in any case), but your implied equation of wealth with good looks, and poverty with ugliness is misleading.  Wealth or poverty - in other words position in the social heirarchy - is decided by State action.  Though on the margin one's appearance is improved by wealth and certainly poverty causes aesthetic ruin (even to the extend of loss of teeth and broken noses!), the original raw material is determined genetically, and not by the exersize of power by the State.