Slashdot Mirror
LP files Suit To Stop State Funding Of 3rd Debate
Mike Oliver writes "Arizona Libertarians have filed a lawsuit that could stop Arizona State University from sponsoring the third presidential debate between George Bush and Sen. John Kerry, scheduled for Oct. 13. The lawsuit maintains that by spending up to $2 million to sponsor the event in Tempe, the university is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties."
seems resonable to me.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Squash the 2 headed chimera.
Well, they do have a point. Why can't the DNC/RNC get the Fortune 500 to pay for it the same way they pay for the conventions?
Hopefully they'll include Badnarik... but will Bush and Kerry debate if they have to face a third candidate?
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
You, too, can vote Libertarian, and see the resulting doubling of that candidate's vote in the by-county breakdown.
I think I speak for all right-thinking people when I say:
"...huh?"
I doubt the lawsuit would hold too much water, but it's good press coverage. The Libertarians certainly seem to know how to do that much. I personally agree with their points, but the courts often seem to be stacked in the favor of the ruling party (parties?).
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I see they registered lp.org, but that doesn't make it commonly used. Funny no one feels the need to say RP or DP.
Shouldn't this be a Slashdot Politics story instead?
I fail to see how this has anything to do with anyone's online rights...
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
But then again, the Arizona Libertarians and their buddies the Arizona Free Republicans have some very interesting ideas- like wanting to convene a new continental congress to reconsider the constitution in light of 225 years of technological change.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
People need to realize that the two party system is essentially the result of our voting system. Fine, say you're a libertarian, but register democrat and work towards a change in the voting system. Otherwise by clinging fiercly to a third party system you're essentially giving more power to the main party that opposes your views by taking your vote away from the main party that's closest to your views. This works both ways, whether your liberal or conservative. That's why third party members piss me off so much. They essentially remove themselves from the main political process because they don't want to compromise their principles in a party that has an actual chance of winning, but in the end they only give the opposition more power. There's a lot more to be accomplished by being an active member of the libertarian subset of the democrative party than by being in the libertarian party. At least on a national level.
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
If this works, maybe I should sue the state to stop financing primary elections. Why should all the taxpayers registered as independents finance any party's nomination process?
I'm all for making sure elections are fair, of course... but shouldn't the state at least bill the parties for the costs?
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
AS long as they also open the debate to the libertarian party candidate, the green party candidate, the satinst party candidate, that guy on fark who says hes running, and cthulu. ANd me for that matter. Id like to debate the chimp.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
the CPD is well funded by both parties and numerous corporate backers. They should be paying the school! (leasing the venue, paying for support staff, etc)
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
The vice presidential debate in Cleveland tremendously helped the local economy and provided a marketing engine for Cleveland. Arizona State has a ton to gain from using this debate to market itself and get its name out there. They are merely hosting a presidential election event and aren't enforcing the rules of the contracts between the candidates. The whole purpose of this lawsuit is political in nature to get us lemmings talking about the viability of more than 2 parties. To attack Arizona for this is ridiculous. It only hurts the people there. This is an enormous commercial for the university.
The real test of whether the Uni is really promoting the two-party system, will be in whether they cancel, or go ahead with the Libertarian candidate included.
I sure hope they are not swayed by this election year third party political ploys.
My position, if anyone was wondering, is that the party system should be abolished and the people should merely focus on the issues rather than political spin like this.
The debate is being paid for by the private ASU Foundation (which is distinct and separate from the state funded University), mostly with corporate donations. No state funds are being used, so I suspect the lawsuit will be quickly dispatched.
The foundation gets most of it's money from corporate sponsors (SRP, Motorola, etc), and the occasional private individual. Since the money doesn't go directly to the candidates, I can't imagine how it'll violate any campaign finanace laws.
If the Libertarians stay true to their principles, they would not accept a spot in the debate under those circumstances. On the principle of it, taxpayers are still supporting views they don't agree with. All the non-D/R/L taxpayers obviously, but also the Democrat taxpayers would still be subsidizing the Rep/Lib views, etc.
Campaigns are a way to get your word out, but you should pay for it yourself, not force others to pay your way. Public financing of election campaigns is the worst possible solution. You end up with gov't itself playing a major role in its own future, by deciding who qualifies for finances, etc. Gov't shouldn't be in the business of deciding which political views to support and which to suppress.
Constitutionally Correct
hmmm....need to check that preview thingy more carefully. Although the Lib-terian party might still be better than what we have now.
If the Commission on Presidential Debates can set the bar to admission such that a 15% showing in the polls is required, can they not also set the bar at 51%? Is it true that an agency can spend public funds to organize and support a single party?
This seems even more ripe for judicial review.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Some candidates SHOULD BE REMOVED from the main political process.
The last thing I want to see on my TV is Leonard Peltier/Barry Bachrach, David Cobb/Pat LaMarche, or Michael Badnarik/Richard Campagna. Not to mention the fairly long list of other wackos 'running' for POTUS. http://www.us-election.com/index.php
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
I was a card-carrying, rabid libertarian not so long ago. But I see now that it will have its place in the future. Post-singularity, a cyberthalamus will not need much in the way of health care and gun control to survive. But for now, some balance has to be struck.
-I am an elective eunuch.
free speech also means we're free to ignore you, too.
Not at a taxpayer-funded facility.
If this were being held privately, there would be objection but not LEGAL action taken.
Hopefully, as with the "ballot access restriction laws", this suit will drive the debate organizers to publish objective criteria about who may and may not be permitted to "debate". Once the rules are published for everyone to see, they can be addressed.
At this time, those rules are not published, or are merely "we only want those two".
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
So on the November ballot is an Initiative to change to a Top-Two style primary--all candidates are listed, the top two vote-getters advance to the final ballot, without regard to what party they are from.
Damn parties don't like how we do nominations, we'll do it without them, thank you very much.
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
"But Iraq did have WMD."
Will you be so kind to show the world where those "NUKEY-LAR" weapons are?
I'm sure you know precisely where they are, just like the other monkey in suit that lied in front of the UN to the rest of the world.
I'm sure those cocksucking morons as Blair, Aznar, dutch and autralian prime ministers (and those from other insignicant countries, but cocksucking anyway) will believe everything, but not the whole world. Hell, their own citizens won't believe these bribed suckers.
"...precisely..."
I wouldn't call him like that, but he seemed to know exactly where everything was.
That was a display of good intelligence. Haha.
Why do people hold to this illusion that having 3 parties will fix anything? The third party will be as corrupt as the first two. As soon as a third party candidate gets in office, you know corporations and interest groups will be waving money in his/her face. And when money talks, politicians listen.
Also, third parties don't offer "more choice" as is purported. They usually choose one issue to run with that a lot of people will agree with them on, like say the Green Party who is big on nature. However, that might be the only thing that people would agree with them on, and the rest of their agenda could be bs. Image a system with a bunch of these little parties.
I'll stick with Republicrats.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
I think you miss the point of voting for a third party. There are years (this is one of them) where if I could vote for 'none of the above' and force both parties to recall their canadates and give me new options, I would. I don't even remotely like either choice. I will vote libertarian because as far as I am concerned, both of the two major candidates are roughly equally bad.
Let me put this in words Democrats and Republicans will understand. I am voting 'Anyone But Bush' and 'Anyone But Kerry'. Call my vote a vote against both of them. Honestly, if I could only pick Bush or Kerry, I would simply not vote.
Voting is a method of getting your voice heard. If during an election it was clear that either Kerry or Bush was going win by a landslide, would you simply not vote if your guy was going to loose without a doubt? Of course not. You would vote regardless just so that your voice is heard. You would vote to keep the mandate to to the winner as small as possible. If Bush beats out Kerry 60% to 35%, Bush leaves with a mandate. If Bush beats out Kerry 44% to 43%, then it sends a strong signal that he doesn't have strong majority on his side.
When a Republican or Democrat sees that 10% of the population voted for none of the above, it sends a clear signal to them that people are disgusted. It tells them that they are so disliked that people will happily risk letting them loose just to prove a point.
As a Libertarian, when my two choices are a liberal who wants to enact socialist policies, and a 'conservative' who would take away a woman's right to choose and is one of the worst spenders in history, what how happy I am when I vote for none of the above. I don't want either of the bastards in the oval office, and to be honest, I can't rightly say which one I dislike the most. If the Republicans loose because of the Libertarian vote, good. It will send a very loud and very clear message.
Republican National Convention fell a week after the deadline in Illinois for candidates to be certified. Thus, if the law were to be followed, Bush would not be able to be on the ballot in Illinois.
The Republican response: Ignore the deadline 'cause we're important. Nevermind that we'd scream like little girls if you ignored the deadline for the Democrats or a third party. We deserve a double standard, because, uhhhh...well we do.
I AM ABOVE THE LAW!live(free) || die;
There is no hegemony. If the Libertarians really wanted to win, they'd be small, and pick their best canadates in a few states, and put all of their resources into making them contenders, and letting the rest fend form themselves while they built the party. They don't. They're, almost entirely, like Ralph Nader, attention whores. They don't even want to be part of the actual depate, they want a few moments in the reflected lime light, a rousing pat on the back from their niche community, and to go back to what they were doing.
Now solidly through my first decade of voting here in Washington, I can remember maybe one really genuine Libertarian canadate. One guy. The two major parties are bitches, but not every problem can be laid on their doorstep.
Ultimately people don't even ask for that much (we all see who gets elected), and the Libertarians, or any other third party for that matter, are unwilling deliver even that little bit.
Hopefully, the democrats will be able to jetison the loons holding their party back, and swallow up the moderate republicans, so we might have a little reason return to government for a little while.
That's why these Libertarians, no matter how right they are, can't win any elections. Politics is a social game of leadership, which you lose by alienating everyone. I'm glad they're forcing the issue, and getting the duopoly parties to demonstrate their subsidies to the general public. But their intimidation tactic, holding the popular debates hostage, is doing their organizing as much damage as it is serving their ideology. Which keeps them from effectively representing me, even if I were to join them.
--
make install -not war
It's better than their old abbreviation: "45".
(People under 30 probably will not get this joke.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, it's money, isn't it ?
as in every (most) other religion...
"Religion : a large succesfull sect
Sect : a small, unsuccessfull religion"
nope I don't think Theta, MEST and Xenu have anything to do with a religion.
Scientology is a hack created by a convicted tax evasionist, pedophile sci-fi write to make money...
Well, they do say that each civilization creates its own religion...the US of A must be in quite a deep shit to have Scientology as a representative religion....
They're only spending $2M on a Presidential debate? We spent $4.2M on the VP debate. Cheap bastards.
Seems awfully hypocritical to me, since Cornel accepts public money and runs a 2-tier tuition scheme for in-state and out-of-state students. But the libertarians were happy to attend a debate there. Hmmm...
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
I'd be interested to see what the legal
justification for ignoring the law was....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Half the eligible voters DONT vote. That tells me they don't like the Dems or Reps.
By voting for the lesser of two evils, whichever you choose, you are giving them your mandate that their current policies are acceptable.
That is NOT the way to force change. When enough people vote a third party, one of the major parties will try to absorb its political positions. So voting for a third party is the best way to communicate that you do not agree with the current system.
In addition, it is a positive feedback loop. Since voting is a herd phenomenon, the initial growth is painfully slow. However as their vote totals grow (and they are) more people hear about their positions, and more people are willing to "take the plunge". I am sure there is a critical threshold where a large number of disaffected voters will suddenly realize there is a third choice, and it is one that might win.
IMO your argurment is I like saying I have a gun, and I can give it to party A or party B. Whichever I give it to is going to shoot me, but party B may have a smile on their face as they do it.
You are free to compromise your principles if you choose. Please remember however that if the founding fathers had done so, we would still be
ruled from london.....
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
You forgot Poland!
Whats hypocritical? They arent saying the debates shouldnt be funded with public money. The lawsuit pertains to a violation of arizona constitution. This has nothing to do with principle or deciding to hold a debate hostage. Its an attempt at using litigation to get them in the debates which apparently should probably be garunteed by the arizona constitution. Your accusation is faceless as such you should be moderated as troll.
What makes you think that we care whether they had WMDs or ever even believed that the WMDs were the real reason for invading. WMDs are the convenient public excuse for reasons which are valid but much less marketable.
Dave
wakeupzombies.com
You better do some research on the LP. Their stated reason (I can't find the link, this is my recollection from the last election...) for running is president isn't that he will win, though it would be nice. Presidents get attention though, and someone looking for a president is more likely to look at their candidate. Once they are looking they are likely to come across the local elections.
Don't forget that there are libertarians all over. There is nothing someone in Montana should be doing to influence the outcome of an election in Mississippi, just to pick two random states. In that regard, focusing doesn't gain much. Don't forget too that even if you focus hard on one area doesn't mean you will win, at best you have a better chance.
Jherico,
How can saying "no" mean "yes"? I give the two faces of the Party Of State Power no money, I give them no votes, I do not give them my registration for their false claims of popularity.
I am doing everything I can short of violence to say "no".
Yet to you this is saying "yes"?
Let me guess, you want me to vote for YOUR candidate, and you're angry that I don't. Too bad.
No.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Man I wish I could edit for typos.
It should have been "than bear any", but from replies it seems my meaning came through.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote Republican or Democrat.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Pure libertarian campaign finance laws look like: "Freedom of speech is for everybody, not just citizens. If you don't like the people that Candidate X accepts campaign money from, you don't need to vote for Candidate X." Foreigners, resident aliens, children, special interest groups, whoever - all of them have the right to free speech, and political speech is one of the most important kinds of speech that the First Amendment protects.
There are some libertarians who'll argue that corporations are a creation of the state, basically done as a favor to the owners who would otherwise operate as a partnership, so it's reasonable to limit that creation by saying that corporations can't do political speech - but corporations are a special case.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks