From the Washington Times:
Neither the Libertarian nor Green parties are guaranteed a space in this year’s presidential debates, a federal court ruled Friday, dealing a blow to their candidates, who were counting on being able to get onto the stage in order to boost their long-shot bids.
District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that the commission on presidential debates is a private entity, not a “public forum,” and neither Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson nor Green Party nominee Jill Stein can force their way into a debate.
Mr. Johnson and Ms. Green had argued that the Commission on Presidential Debates was essentially a government actor, performing an important role in American democracy, and so it should be subjected to public oversight — including by the courts.
But Judge Collyer said courts have been quite clear in finding that debates are a private action, and those sponsoring them are generally protected in making their own decisions.
“This court could not require defendants to include plaintiffs in the debates because such an order would violate the First Amendment prohibition on forced speech and forced association,” Judge Collyer found.
If getting on in enough states to win is not enough of a barrier to entry, then make the requirement ballot access in all 50 states plus DC.
Yes, that is true Root’s Teeth Are Awesome, and this is why they ought to come up with a more reasonable standard for getting into the presidential debates. If a candidate is able to jump through all of the hoops necessary to qualify for the ballot in enough states to have a chance to theoretically win the election, it shows that they are a serious candidate and not just some person who decided to run for President on a whim without having their act together.
Andy: Freedom of Association does not apply to the presidential debates because they use tax payer funds and they are for a public office,
Even if that’s true, it still doesn’t provide any objective alternate criteria for admitting candidates into the debates. Why admit only candidate who can attain 270 electoral votes? Why not any candidate who filed with the FEC (I think there are over 200)? They pay taxes too.
The 15% polling criterion, the 270 electoral vote criterion, the FEC filing criterion — all are arbitrary. There are no objective criteria to admit, or reject, Johnson — or anyone else — into the debates. All criteria involve some subjective judgement.
Naturally, the Dems and GOP are biased when exercising their judgments as to admission criteria. But so is every other candidate and party.
“A) Shut the debates down, as in stop having them,
or,
B) Open them up to all candidates who qualify for enough ballots to where they could theoretically win the election.”
As TLK and Dr. Phillies(and myself) discussed here:
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2016/07/and-again-with-math.html
the theoretical mathematical minimum requirement for winning is actually a pretty low barrier. Hence, B is not really much of an exclusionary filtering rule. B + 15% polling avg is a fairly reasonable combination to ensure the participants are restricted to those who have a measurable likelihood of winning while excluding everyone and their brother who are capable spending a little bit of coin and filing in easy ballot access states.
For chess players(==people who are able to see ahead by more than one move), the downside to a successful TeamGov challenge to the Debate participation requirements are obvious. The Dems and the Repubs would begin to work through the States with easy ballot access laws to toughen them up. High priority item. Closes that loophole real fast.
I have a million and one objections to the way the US govt conducts its business. The Debate commission is not really one of them. To the extent I might have issues with it, those issues are way, way, way down on the priority list. The fact is, if your objective is to ostensibly win the US presidency, then you are going to have work for it. You can’t run a presidential campaign merely from the offices of the Chicago Tribune Editorial board or the television studios of CNN. TeamGov is more or less just trading on reputation among the gatekeepers.
Massimo “I would say that the real sponsors are the two main parties. I can see Trump saying that he won’t participate to the debates if Johnson is allowed in with less than the 15%.”
It should be Hillary that doesn’t want Johnson in. Trump isn’t going to go below a certain level of support no matter how he is attacked. Assume Trump is already close to his floor. Johnson getting in the debates and attacking Trump wouldn’t damage Trump, but Johnson might attract more of the never-Trump vote away from Hillary.
Also, Hillary is the front runner. She wants to keep things as close to they are now until the election is held. Trump needs to shake things up. Debates are a potential shaker. Hillary should want as few debates as possible, Trump should want as many as possible.
The solution is simple: Stop giving taxpayer money to the CPD. If they, or anybody else, wants to host a debate, they can invite whomever they want, but they have to pay for it out of their own pocket.
You analogy is flawed. If a person is driving on government roads they have to obey the rules of the road. If a person is using a government library, they have to obey the rules of the library, and neither the roads or the libraries have the right to discriminate against members of the public.
The presidential debates are for a PUBLIC office and they utilize tax payer funding, plus the debate commission has been granted tax exempt status, and part of the rules to get tax exempt status is that an organization must be non-partisan, yet the debate commission is bi-partisan, in that they favor Democrats and Republicans and discriminate against everyone else.
So I only see two solutions, either:
A) Shut the debates down, as in stop having them,
or,
B) Open them up to all candidates who qualify for enough ballots to where they could theoretically win the election.
Andy, saying that just because an entity receives some government funding means it should be treated as if it were owned by government is based on the same logic as saying that because someone drives on public roads or uses a public library, they have agreed to obey all the government’s laws. Arguments like that just take us farther from libertarianism, and closer to communism.
I would’ve gone the discrimination route myself. The entire legal question would be difficult to address because at some point the attorney for the “outsiders” would have to PROVE that debates make a difference in viewers’ perceptions and decisions. That is too subjective even for the American judicial system.
1996 Telecommunications Act signed by Bill Clinton removed a law that stated that all candidates should receive equal air time. You might find yourself bogged down in court trying to get a judge to rule on what is a candidate; or what is air time. Ron Paul didn’t sue fox news when his minutes didn’t equal the minutes allotted the other Republican candidates. Gary Johnson didn’t sue anyone either as I recall when his time wasn’t close to the others when he ran for president as a republican.
What is the utility of being in a debate if you don’t get equal time to act or react?
JC Penney could place a sign at every entrance stating a person had to be a set skin tone (sign would include color index to aid possible customers to match) in order to shop and purchase at their stores. We know that such a move would not be legal. JC Penney would go broke through civil lawsuits as well.
The CPD set a percentage of polls at 15%. If the candidate reaches that number, then they can enter the debate. The mathematical problems with polling alone would make it an equal to a sign including a skin tone index.
What makes the 15% reasonable relevant to an election four months away?
Also, are these judges appointed by the federal level? If so, why would you expect a federally appointed judge to rule in favor of more parties onto the CPD stage when they got their job from one of the major parties?
Polling is mathematically weak unless the sample sizes are in the millions. I would’ve gone with discrimination.
I would say that the real sponsors are the two main parties. I can see Trump saying that he won’t participate to the debates if Johnson is allowed in with less than the 15%.
I agree that we shouldn’t use anti-trust laws if we want to be pure and consistent, but I think a bit of pragmatism is required. Sometimes you have to use the weapons of the enemy.
Well, outside of getting to 15%–which may be possible in Johnson’s case–I think the only way to try to get the CPD to allow Johnson and Stein in would be to write to the sponsors of the debates and complain. In the last election, some sponsors actually pulled their support as a result of that, and with (almost certainly) even more people wanting third party candidates at the debate now and thus a higher number of people complaining, even more might pull out if the CPD doesn’t change its ways. It’s a lot harder to have a debate if you don’t have money for it.
Are the sponsors for this year known yet?
Freedom of Association does not apply to the presidential debates because they use tax payer funds and they are for a public office, plus the Commission on Presidential Debates abuses its tax exempt status by favoring Democrats and Republicans and discriminating against everyone else, which is a violation of the criteria which has granted them tax exempt status.
Libertarians should be opposing anti-trust laws, rather than using them as the basis for abridging freedom of association.
Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates is not about freedom of association. It is about the federal anti-trust laws. The decision’s first paragraph says, “Because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, these claims fail as a matter of well-established law.” That paragraph, summarizing what the case is about, says nothing about freedom of association.
New IBD/TIPP 4 way poll out today. Johnson at 12% up from 9% in late June.
http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-loses-ground-across-the-board-against-clinton-poll-finds/
Ah, the delicious irony of the “libertarian” who so vehemently opposes freedom of association having his debate dreams crushed by … freedom of association!
What’s that I hear? Sounds like the World’s Smallest Violin — playing a chorus for Gary and his Groupies.
The other lawsuit is still pending. Level the Playing Field v FEC.
#teamWhine
let’s see, TeamGov bots endlessly chirp on the sine qua non of making the debates and then resort to inane conspiracies about being excluded from the debates by those who control who gets invited to the debates. Whatever it is you are smoking, cut out those “impurities” because it is f*ckin with your ability to demonstrate any degree of rational coherence.
Tom,
“Well, that and they shouldn’t be allowed to contribute, in-kind, more than the same $5,400 per candidate per election cycle everyone else can. ”
Good strong point!
“I have wondered that since political contributions are not tax deductible, whether the sponsors, the broadcasters shouldn’t have to pay taxes on what they spend on the debates.”
Well, that and they shouldn’t be allowed to contribute, in-kind, more than the same $5,400 per candidate per election cycle everyone else can. So I guess they’re going to have to have the debate in a very small venue. Maybe one of the CPD members lives in a condo where the HOA lets members have free use of a rec room or something.
I have wondered that since political contributions are not tax deductible, whether the sponsors, the broadcasters shouldn’t have to pay taxes on what they spend on the debates. Not that I would actually trust the IRS to enforce it.
Also, we should always avoid use of the word RIGGED! It’s Trumpian looney tunes language. “Unfair?” yes. “Rigged? I wouldn’t go there.
The issue in this case was the anti-trust act. The Washington Times story did a bad job and when one reads the story, one doesn’t learn that. Rebel Alliance is right.
The decision has at least 5 factual errors, which I mention at BAN.
Who is “Ms. Green?” 🙂
If we can’t force our way in, we’ll just have to play by their rules. . . one more month for those poll numbers to inch up just a little bit more. As more and more people have the kool aid wear off and realize the horror Trump presents, we may grab enough to make the stage.
Before you jump on me and say “aren’t you a democrat?” I say “we” because I am almost certainly voting for Gov. Johnson
BTW, I also believe that commission is a “government actor.” You don’t have to be comprised of government employees to be considered a legal “government actor.” There are literally thousands of case law examples of that. I just dealt with one recently that ruled that a private organization on Long Island was a government actor because they signed a contract with the county (which then paid the private employees) to perform a non-mandated act.
This decision makes no sense. The judge said the CPD is private, which it is. But the suit is based on the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prevents large private entities from colluding to squeeze out small competitors.
I’m siding with the court on this one. Freedom of association. Unfair? Sure. But what if they had “won?” Dissolve the private CPD, form another group, hold debates with whoever you want. This CPD lawsuit never had a hope, IMO, of winning (anything other than the earned media about how unfair this all is which earned media value should, I’d hope, exceed the dollar cost of filing that lawsuit (Although I’ll also say I think the lack of transparency about how much was raised and how it was spent remains a concern. If OAI/etc are going to call for government efficiency and transparency, then they should, IMO, be exemplars of those qualities))
.
Apparently it’s perfectly legal to rig the presidential election process, so long as a private entity does it.
Sometimes you can choose not to bake the cake….