Ultimately, this bill leaves simply too much power within the hands of potentially self interested, biased network executives to decide which type of “candidate centered” or “issue centered” programming to show.  Moreover, although the network will be restricted to use certain prime time slots, there are ways in which to manipulate this minor limitation in order to better reach a particular kind of audience. A notoriously liberal station could place certain programming during a slot that has significantly higher ratings with respect to older voters, women voters, etc.  Television and Radio stations will also have complete control over the amount of federal, state, and local programming they wish to include within these two hours a week.  There are simply too many ways in which this bill places extreme amounts of power into various peoples’ hands, while nonetheless meeting the requirements set forth by the bill.  It is this reliance and trust that has been placed in the station managers that will inevitably have negative results. One can easily imagine how this new array of campaign regulations will open the door for the possibility of kickbacks, payoffs, and bribes that currently plague the political arena. 
            Another major blemish on this seemingly well-intentioned bill is the clause that states that a candidate can trade money for vouchers, but then relinquish the vouchers to their respective political party.  The party can then do whatever they wish with the vouchers for any election they see fit.  This blatantly allows for corruption and unjust financing to a candidate, which directly contradicts what the bill is attempting futilely to accomplish in the first place.  It makes it easier for one candidate to receive large amounts of aid from their party in order to bury his or her opponent. Furthermore, the qualifications necessary to become a recognized political party are as usual, quite difficult to meet for many minor parties. Therefore members of the two established political parties have one more advantage at their disposal. If the goal of the bill is to level the playing field within elections by opening up fair channels of advertising to candidates, this is without question a counter-intuitive measure to take.  Rather than boosting party war-chests in any way, Congress should focus on ways that facilitate individual participation, that are separate and apart from partisan party politics.  In this way legislators could be more inclined to vote with their conscious instead of pandering to their respective parties for money.  This bill leads one to ask the question what the point is of setting limits on how much one can spend personally, if it is possible to receive a potentially limitless sum of money from ones party.  Rather than helping the little guy run an effective, fair campaign, this bill would likely further solidify the grip that partisan party politics currently has on our great nation.
            Further flaws can be found within Line 15 of page 3 in the bill briefly outlines that, “The Commission shall conduct such audits as it deems necessary to ensure that each broadcaster to which this section applies is allocating television broadcast advertising time in accordance with this section and section 312.”  The loopholes and defects are as apparent as day.  First off, when will the commission “deem it necessary” to conduct an audit?  The commission will most likely be bi-partisan, but that has never stopped schmoozing quid-pro-quo politics from being stopped before.  It necessitates a candidate to metaphorically get in bed with broadcasting managers and the congressional commission members.  Besides the behind the scenes and off the book deals that will inescapably arise, a candidate will have more miles of red tape to sift through and palms to grease to get a simple ad onto television.  The passage above also asserts that it will make sure that broadcasters are adhering to the time quotas, but states nothing about levels of equality within the time slots granted to the candidates.  A broadcaster could place stronger programming for one candidate directly after a weaker one. 
            The strategies and tactics to exploit this bill are endless and will always be a problem.  With regard to increasing the fairness and awareness of the electoral process, the measures attempted in this bill are clearly insufficient to achieve these ends.  It is important to understand that while Citizens Against Bad Bills understands the motive behind this bill, we reject the negative consequences that could potentially result from it.  It is possible to achieve real, efficient campaign finance reform without exposing the political arena to potential areas of corruption.  We need to limit the power of that party politics has in our country, while at the same time leveling the playing field to the extent that motivated individuals can run an effective campaign.  This bill does not effectively accomplish these goals.