As expressed in my headline, I just thought this was kinda ironic:
LAWSUIT CHALLENGING COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES TO BE FILED TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, IN WASHINGTON, DC
What: On Tuesday, September 29, a lawsuit will be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia charging that the exclusion of qualified candidates from the general election presidential debates by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) violates federal anti-trust laws.
When: 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Where: United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 400 Constitution Avenue NW, DC.
Who: Bruce Fein, attorney representing the plaintiffs, will file the complaint, and will be available for interviews with the media outside the Courthouse.
Plaintiffs are: 2012 Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson; Jim Gray, 2012 Libertarian vice-presidential nominee; Jill Stein, 2012 Green Party presidential nominee; Cheri Honkala, 2012 Green Party vice-presidential nominee; the Libertarian National Committee, and the Green Party of the United States.
About: The lawsuit challenging the exclusion of candidates from CPD-sponsored debates is backed by the Our America Initiative, a not-for-profit advocacy organization, through the Fair Debates project, https://www.fairdebates.com. Former New Mexico Governor and 2012 presidential candidate Gary Johnson is the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative.
Related Posts
No.
Anyone else?
Yeahboy. Let me get this straight. Libertarians think government is too big , and takes on too many tasks. My understanding is that a person should be basically independent of government assistance. And yet they want government to force this commission on presidential debates, which is a private organization and which receives no funds from the government, to do something it doesn’t want to do with the debates it sponsors? I would think that the proper Libertarian response would be to hold their own debate, in their own chosen venue, inviting whomever they chose, and publicizing it as they wished. Can’t afford it? Don’t expect gov’t to supply it. Houston, we have a problem.
So called “Libertarians” are only against government until they want something from government. It is of course highly hypocritical.
I’m going with the Libertarians on this one (and their partners in the various lawsuits against the FEC and CPD, the Green Party). I’m not aware that the Libertarian Party’s natural preference for a limited federal government role does not mean that they also think fair national elections at the federal level should be abolished—on the contrary, that’s one of the core functions that even libertarians would acknowledge is the responsibility of the federal government.
Yes, the CPD is not a government entity per se, but a glance at its history and its leadership tells you all you need to know, that in truth it’s a cabal created and run by power-brokers of the two major parties to ensure that the emergence of Brad’s Unparty, or of a variety of choices at the presidential election level never happens.
The Libertarians and the Green Party could put on their own debate, I suppose, but fat chance getting the GOP or Democratic candidates to appear on it. The League of Women Voters used to run the debates, but were sort of forced out of it by the major parties when they formed the CPD.
Bottom line: the two-party system has worked increasingly poorly for our country. If these parties have gotten on the ballot in all 50 states, let the polls that determine eligibility for these debates truly include such candidates in all cases.
The premise of your headline, Brad, is misleading: it’s not a matter of getting the government to force “someone else” to allow certain people into a debate, it’s about forcing the government to stop trying to rig the game in its own favor, that is to say, in the favor of the two giants who share control of the government, who take turns controlling the Presidency and the two branches of Congress, and who have mutually agreed to do all they can to keep out third party candidates. That’s the very definition of “anti-trust,” and a monopoly controlled by the government is (in the Libertarian view, for sure) the worst kind of monopoly there is.
I suppose one could see a certain irony or contradiction here…but the Libertarian candidate for President should have the right to be challenged on that on the national stage, and to have the chance to defend that position. On the merits, the Libertarians and Greens are on the right track. We need to begin to chip away at the monopoly of these two major parties. They themselves started as offshoots of other parties, they have not existed since the beginning of American history, there is no reason why they should retain their dominance forever. Why not open our national consciousness to other possibilities?
Oh, I think all citizens should have recourse to the courts and other benefits of our system of government.
But then, I don’t embrace an anti-government ideology.
Philip I completely agree with your analysis of what the government’s role should be in the process. But it runs completely against libertarian doctrine. The problem I have with the Libertarians is that they assert their freedom agenda when it suits their mostly wealthy membership but when their ox gets just a tiny bit gored they abandon it in favor of an activist agenda. In this case, as you pointed out, the CPD is a private entity. According to libertarian doctrine they SHOULD be free to choose just two parties to participate in their debates. If the other parties want to have their own debate then they are free to do so. If they lose out on elections because the oligopoly position of the two party system creates entry barriers to the process then so be it. That’s just the way free markets work. In this worldview elections are like any other commodity, let the buyer, or in this case the voter, make the decision, not government.
There isn’t a libertarian who believes there should be NO government. We believe there should be LESS government. And that will never happen as long as the two major parties have a biopoly on the process. Do the two parties pay to use government buildings for their primaries? They should.