Original article can be found here.
On October 29, the Commission on Presidential Debates said it won’t change the 15% poll rule that it has used throughout this century. Here is the announcement. Although the decision was made on October 28, it was not announced until October 29.
Two lawsuits are pending against the 15% rule, both in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. They are Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, and Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates. The first one depends on campaign finance law and the second on antitrust law.
Per the web page Steve linked above, 2016 sponsors are not announced yet.
I will make A-List on Southwest Airlines this year with my trip to the South Carolina convention next week. I make it a point to fly their airline whenever possible and speak its praises highly.
Perhaps I will write a polite, but pointed, letter on Libertarian Party letterhead to their CEO to suggest that they not renew their sponsorship for the 2016 election cycle.
By the way, I was being sarcastic with my first comment. I am not surprised at all.
I’m also relatively certain that the legal challenges will not result in any substantive changes. I think there’s a reasonable chance that the criteria for debate inclusion will be changed, probably for the better. But, I seriously doubt that the criteria will change to such a point that we see alt party or indy candidates in the debates with any regularity. It’s just not going to be that easy to bring about real change.
“steve m
October 30, 2015 at 2:23 am
They don’t care how they look to informed people. They care that they can continue to run their privately financed, tax deductible political advertisements.”
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a part of the ruling establishment.
Watch this video from Larken Rose:
How They See You
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Auf1rehiA-4
Steve–
Good idea.
If you are going to boycott, e.g., Southwest Air, be sure to write to their customer relations dept. and let them know why.
http://debates.org/index.php?page=national-debate-sponsors
Now would be the time to start to organize a boycott of the sponsors.
PEACE
Andy Craig,
That is EXACTLY what I said to my husband on reading the ruling. Good. They stuck to their guns instead of taking the smarter tactical move of “appearing” to be reasonable which still would have been as good as nothing to independent parties. Foolish move on their part. Better for us.
They don’t care how they look to informed people. They care that they can continue to run their privately financed, tax deductible political advertisements.
I’m surprised, but this might be, counter-intuitively, a good thing. Lowering the threshold to 10% was going to be their token response to the criticism they’ve got, not just from Johnson et al and LtPF et al, but also from more mainstream and establishment corners. It would not have made a substantive difference (what good does lowering it to 10% do if they still only look at two-party-only polls?), but it would have served as a release valve on some of the pressure.
Sticking at 15% makes them look petty and obstinate. It demonstrate they don’t even cave to objective expert consensus when doing so might threaten their two-party-only exclusivity. So it could, ultimately, lead to a bigger change possible than the RNC/DNC-controlled CPD would ever concede voluntarily.
Wow! Big surprise.
Commenting to subscribe