That people should have an inherent right to information about their candidates is a fundamental statement that no one can truly disagree with. Whether press conferences, whose questions are formulated by a media with a rating and privilages agenda, should be mandatory is debatable. In the preamble of the Atlanta Declaration it states;
"Acknowledging the right of access to information is a foundation for citizen participation."
The news media is more corrupt than the politicians, for they cleverly twist information in order to push their own agenda. A for profit organization which relies on ratings would certainly suffer loss if they harassed a candidate with embarrassing questions only to discover that they would have to face four years of his presidency. So, the lead candidates in most elections are treated with kid gloves. If the tide of an election turns, the media changes tactics, and attacks the one who trails in the polls. How does that materially effect "citizen participation"? In fact it goes on to say that this right to information will "combat corruption" yet the way in which we gather information regarding the candidates is completely corrupt.
While I believe that the Atlanta Declaration has the right spirit, its execution leaves much to be desires. Candidates should be subject to questions on current issues that are important to Americans, and not to the news media. The media has proven over and over that they haven't a clue as to what the average American considers important. They also have a propensity for wording their own questions in order to the advantage of their particular agenda. Instead of this media circus, each candidate would have a goverment taxpayer funded campaign expense account in order to supply every voter with a complete report of the candidate's voting record along with a statement of his plans for solving current issues. I know this is possible because each year in my state, a small non-profit citizen's group does exactly that. Interviews could conceivably be conducted by the media, but using questions submitted by the public; pulled randomly so that no media interference would be possible.
A complete overhaul of our campaign and voting system is what is desperately needed. By applying the monies spent yearly on purchased favors, cleverly labeled as contributions, we could reduce the national debt, and possibly elect more qualified candidates. I believe that campaign contributions should be outlawed completely and the information be mandated by the above suggestion. It is not as glamorous, as the media madness that we all endure, but it is also not as dangerous. Local question and answer sessions attended by the media but run by the citizenry would be much more desirable. The nation would be better served if good solid candidates were heard equally with those candidates who were supported by powerful and wealthy constituents, such as those with television shows that influence the public simply by the repetition of their candidates names and profiles.
This method would totally eliminate negative campaigning as well. If you were to hire a contractor, electrician or other tradesman to work in or around your home, you would first require him to show you proof that he is both licensed and efficient. You might be attracted initially by some slick advertisement, but ultimately you should be interested in only one thingcan he do the job. Imagine yourself ready to hire someone who has shown photographic or physical evidence of his proficiency, when suddenly your tradesman candidate begins lambasting his competition, calling them liars, cheats and accusing them of doing bad work. I know I would begin to think that he might have a hidden agenda, covering his own lack of skill.
If we can easily see through a mere tradesman with such an attitude, why do we falter when it comes to intelligently selecting Senators, Congressmen or Presidents? Americans have completely lost the spirit of what election means. It is each and every man's personal say about how this government operates, yet most of us select our candidates based on who has the best commercial or the wittiest comebacks or is the most charismatic. Some men and women, who have great personalities, couldn't govern their own children, much less the United States of America. Our citizenry has abdicated its responsibility to know the candidates and think through the issues. Each of us, without help of the news media, can hear and understand what the candidates are saying without an explanation. Yet, after the typical press conferences, the media rehashes and explains what they heard the candidates say, brazenly insulting the intelligence of the American public. If that's the price I have to pay to receive information, then I say the price is too high.
Candidates should be surveyed on the issues and should be required to answer. Too often, they make no comment and that in itself is an admission. However, the American public has a right to know each candidates philosophy on a given issue uncolored by media interference. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press have digressed into license and a return to integrity and open communication with the public via platforms and mailings will save millions in campaign ads and perhaps allow people to make truly informed decisions.