Comments
VIEWPOINT - A debate planned to deliberately reward elite political insiders in the race for governor of California was heavily protested, correctly deemed counterfeit, and was cancelled less than 24 hours before it was to take place.
The University of Southern California, which designed and sponsored the gubernatorial debate and selected the participants, should have known better. As an esteemed institution that educates many of the state's political and civic leaders, well known for its polling and political research, acted naively. Or maybe intentionally, in order to please some of its major donors. The backlash was inevitable.
USC, a conservative private institution, has faced numerous high-profile scandals, including the "Operation Varsity Blues" admissions bribery scheme, a gynecologist accused of abusing hundreds of patients, a medical school dean linked to drug use and leadership failures. These incidents severely have damaged its reputation and has lost the trust of the public.
USC’s criteria for selecting debate participants were exclusionary, functionally favored wealthy candidates, and out of step with California’s demographic realities. A viability formula was used which included fundraising as a major component, heavily supporting those with wealthy donor networks, heavy institutional backing, or those with the ability to self-fund or richly seed their campaigns.
Only white candidates were invited to the debate hosted by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, KABC-TV Los Angeles, and Univision. Excluded were former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, and former State Controller Betty Yee. The university said they had not met their debate criteria.
Invited were former Fox News host Steve Hilton, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire Tom Steyer and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, all selected based on a USC-developed formula combining polling, fundraising, and time in the race.
USC invited candidates by ranking their polling percentage, which accounted for two‑thirds of their score; and fundraising, which was the other one-third of the total. This component included semi‑annual fundraising reports, self-funding, and outside donations. Those with higher fundraising total receive higher scores. Of course, the advantage went to those with wealthy donor networks, institutional backing, and the size of their own pocketbook.
But there was controversy within the controversy. Excluded candidates argued the conditions were engineered to allow the inclusion of San José Mayor Matt Mahan, who entered the race in late January and quickly raised millions of dollars from Silicon Valley executives and billionaires. Doubted were the university’s criteria that elevated Mahan despite his polling which was lower than some excluded candidates of color.
Further complicating the matter was the fact that some Mahan supporters were known to have notable ties to the university including billionaire Rick Caruso. USC should have foreseen these appearances‑of‑bias issues.
According to The San Joaquin Valley Sun, Mike Murphy, co-director of USC’s Center for the Political Future—which is co-hosting the debate—has been serving as a voluntary adviser to an independent expenditure committee supporting Mahan. Murphy, a seasoned GOP strategist, stated last week that he was not involved in organizing the debate and has requested unpaid leave from the university through June 2 primary should he assume a paid position with the campaign. Murphy is a political consultant who has advised John McCain, Jeb Bush, Arnold Schwarzegger and more recently Rick Caruso.
Rick Caruso, the billionaire real estate developer, a USC alumnus and a university trustee, is a big supporter of Mahan and has publicly backed him.
Debate criteria are essential; without them, debates with dozens of candidates would become chaotic. Issues arise not from the criteria themselves but from their creators, especially when driven by self-interest and agenda, leading to manipulation of democracy.
Excluding candidates from debates results in a loss of visibility, renders them non-viable, reduces press coverage, and makes donors reluctant. Momentum is lost when needed most. And the debate really becomes a reallocation event. The voters are directed to support a candidate that appears prominent and was not their initial choice.
Republican Hilton criticized Democrats who did not qualify for the debate and USC’s criteria, calling them "completely ridiculous." In a video posted on the social media platform X, he said, “You’ve got a bunch of Democrats that aren’t doing well enough to get into the debate, complaining about it, and I don’t have any time for that at all. Do better, and then you’ll get in the debate…. Then you’ve got Matt Mahan, who’s a candidate who’s just got into the race, absolutely doesn’t meet the criteria, but they’ve rigged the rules in order to get him in.”
Villaraigosa said that the university made the right call to cancel the debate, although it came late and under pressure. The approach used could not survive public examination. “The formula used penalized candidates for entering the race early while rewarding a late entrant with documented ties to USC donor network.”
For now, we must pay close attention to upcoming debates. Debates fulfill the promise of democracy and, therefore, should be staged carefully, fairly and diligently. Democracy is a culture, not just a process that can be undermined through poor rules, special interests and agenda, and shows with ambiguous structures.
"Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of our democracy"-Jesse Jackson.
(Nick Patsaouras is an electrical engineer, civic leader, and a longtime public advocate. He ran for Mayor in 1993 with a focus on rebuilding L.A. through transportation after the 1992 civil unrest. He has served on major public boards, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Metro, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, helping guide infrastructure and planning policy in Los Angeles. He is the author of the book "The Making of Modern Los Angeles.")
