Release from OAI, distributed by the Libertarian Party:
In 2012, four candidates for U.S. President qualified for enough states’ ballots to potentially achieve a majority in the Electoral College. Only four.
One of those candidates was Gov. Gary Johnson, nominee of the Libertarian Party. The others were Dr. Jill Stein, nominee of the Green Party, and of course, President Obama and Gov. Romney, the two “major” party candidates.
Yet, when it came time for the traditional — and critical — nationally televised debates, only Obama and Romney were invited. That is a travesty, and it happened for a reason.
In 1987, the Republican and Democratic National Committees got together and created a private, but official-sounding organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Their stated purpose was to seize control of the general election debates — and exclude “third” parties and their candidates from participating.
They succeeded, in a move that the previous, nonpartisan debate sponsor, the League of Women Voters accurately charged would “perpetrate a fraud on the American voter”.
As you may know, leaders of the Green Party, including Ralph Nader, have protested this blatant Republican-Democrat debate duopoly loudly and consistently. So far, the CPD and its two-party bosses have ignored those protests and continued to use an arbitrary polling threshold to exclude any candidates other than their own. They have even gone so far as to require their own nominees, such as Obama and Romney, to agree in writing that they will NOT participate in any debates other than those sponsored by the CPD.
Today, with polls showing a majority of Americans do not believe that either the Republican or Democrat Party represents their views, the demand for fair, open debates has never been greater.
That’s why the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, Dr. Stein, Gov. Johnson and their respective 2012 vice-presidential nominees have prepared a lawsuit to challenge the CPD in federal court — a lawsuit that will show how the CPD violates anti-trust laws and unfairly limits voters’ choices.
Your support of this lawsuit is essential. The CPD is backed financially by major corporations with unlimited resources. The Republicans and Democrats will spend whatever they think it takes to protect their duopoly, and we must have the resources to prevail.
Wednesday, May 13, the legal team and key members in the movement, are hosting a Google Hangout to discuss the lawsuit, outline the strategy and talk about the need for both financial and grassroots support for this critical fight. It will begin at 9:00 p.m. ET / 6:00 p.m. PT.
You can join by simply going to – https://plus.google.com/events/csv8oi1sekdi5ukgl11pk23024k
We hope you will join us Wednesday night and learn more about our effort to literally change the political landscape — and give independent voices a chance to be heard on the national debate stage.
If you can’t join us Wednesday, but wish to learn more about the CPD lawsuit, you can do so by going to www.FairDebates.com.
We can win this fight. We have a strong case, and we have basic fairness on our side. But we can’t do it without your help.
Thanks, and we look forward to hearing from you!
I listened to this hangout. It was worthwhile.
It is my firm opinion that monopolies, even media monopolies, can only happen with the collusion of government. The great Robber Barons of the 19th century, as today, all had the advantage of laws, big and small, that favored them over their competitors. Sometimes this took the form of preferential land leases, sometimes preferential government contracts, sometimes preferential regulation. Without the influence of government, natural market competitive forces would do a far better job of both limiting the size of mega business and allowing fertile ground for new businesses to start. No monopoly can maintain market control everywhere without government help.
I have reluctance to rely on a lawsuit to fight cartel or monopoly practices, but given that it is illegal in the law to engage in such practices under government proscribed conditions, and given that the major parties know this, a lawsuit on the CPD is both necessary and proper. It is good that the Libertarians and the Greens are cooperating in something that should be so obvious as letting candidates speak, much as 10 of the 14 third parties in Florida came together to oppose laws that specifically restrict third parties in that state. It is a way in a rigged system to at least let people know that it is a rigged system. We need to be weaned off of such lawsuit crutches offered by the government, however, and let a free market of ideas operate.
Florida has an equivalent to the CPD in the form of the Florida Press Association. During the Wyllie for Governor Campaign (Libertarian) the FPA set the poll criteria to be included in televised debates at 15%. These debates were to happen within 30 days of the election. Interestingly, the previous third party candidate who challenged the FPA on its entry criteria (and took them to court too) had to get only 7% of the vote. The FPA decision was also made when Wyllie’s polls (the few that included him) had him peaking at 13% of the vote, so 15% is an interesting number. It is my personal opinion that a media blackout in the last 30 days of a campaign are especially damaging, as evidenced by the Sarvis Campaign in Virginia that, similarly, went from 13% of the vote to 6.7% after a very obvious media blackout in the last 30 days there. To my mind, like a couple married and dancing for 150 years, there is little doubt of collusion and a bipartisan desire to prevent any new guys from cutting in, if for no other reason than it is better to have the devil you know. The problem is, everyone else has to pay the band, but never get to dance.