>The point here is that he's just another rich guy who could buy publicity. Not that he knew exactly what to do with it.
>
>I think what is missing here is the guaranteed air time for all the parties, such as exists in many European countries (Serbia included). Anyone can buy advertising time on any commercial TV or radio station (provided they're a registered political party), but the thirty to ninety minutes is guaranteed on the state TV to any party which is on the ballots. And equal time at that - the amount of time depends on which elections, not which party is it. The state TV is a public service, paid from tax or (state-enforced) subscription, and only partially by commercials. This also means that its board of directors is appointed by the Parliament, or one of its committees.
>
>Such a public service doesn't seem to exist here. I don't know whether PBS counts; and if it does, I haven't seen them give a chance to each political party at equal terms. Not that I'm watching PBS much... only BBC news.


If all the parties got equal air time, I think the election process would be way too tidious. It's too long and tidious as it is now. There seems to be at least 30 political parties as it was listed on this thread. How many of them are for real and how many of them are just for kicks?-who knows.

I think even PBS is loyal to who their biggest contributors are. If Democrats are their biggest contributors, then they'll probably cater to them more and vise-versa for Republicans.

I don't know about The campaign finance reform. I think it's a two edge sword. While reducing the amount of contribution allowed would cut down on soft-money and all, I think it would really hurt the "not-so-rich/not-so-popular" candidates because it will make it ever more difficult to raise enough money to make a serious run. They need that big contributors that they never seem to get anyway.