Missing from the hyperbolic coverage of the issue is any discussion about the real problem with the Clean Elections Law as proposed. At that time, this was an unheard of amount for a House race. Sure, but that's the reality in an urbanized state like Massachusetts in which candidates must pay for significant mailings and advertising. Without adequate campaign funds, the trivial matters the news media choose to focus on will continue to dominate political campaigns. At their best, campaigns educate people about the differences in candidates' qualifications, philosophies, and their plans for the office they seek.
Sincere candidates seek to take their campaign to that level of discussion.
Honest news executives will admit that their marketing analyses show that most viewers aren't interested in political coverage, and they'll be doing less of it. Like candidates, reporters and journalists cover the spectrum, but left to their own devices the media as a whole will not cover elections in any more than a perfunctory and superficial manner, unless the coverage feeds their marketing strategy. The presidential campaign so far is instructive. We've heard a lot more about Gore consultant Naomi Wolf's ideas than we have about any candidate's, more about John McCain's temper than his thoughts, and more about the trick questions George W. Bush can't answer than the real answers he'd give on where he'd take the country. We will not find out what these candidates want to do and what they believe from the mainstream coverage, unless genuine candidate competition forces it.