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."

Comments

The real test

[phyruxus]

..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.

Hopefully they'll include Badnarik... but will Bush and Kerry debate if they have to face a third candidate?

Next up...

[peacefinder]

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?

Libertarian principles conflict

[ChristTrekker]

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.

Re:I'm unimpressed.

[St. Arbirix]

You're right about the Libertarians not doing this if they were in the debates. If the CPD wasn't set up to exclude third parties we wouldn't be having this problem at all. So while you may be right about their motivations, you've totally dismissed the fact that there is a problem. Redirection and specious reasoning is a habit that comes with the campaign stickers, I understand.

First, read some history about why we two so extremely dominant parties. I know there have nearly always been two main parties, but the amount of exclusion enforced by them now is just scary.

Something to remember about any third parties (or is that 4th, 5th, 6th, and etc.) is that they have been wholly responsible for every change reflected in one of the two dominant parties. Social security, desegregation, Southern succession, welfare, abortion, emission standards, prohibition... all these things came about because there were third parties pushing these ideas, for better or worse. (Go ahead and pick a few more novel ideas out of political history and trace their origins. Pay attention not to who ratified it but to who first pushed it.) To say that they remove themselves from the main political process because they don't compromise principles is the exact opposite of what they've proven themselves capable of doing. Third parties can grow and change a lot faster than a main party and when the main parties see that that change is approved of by so many people only then do they consider that change themselves. The two main parties do nothing *but* compromise their principles, especially when it runs counter to the other party.

The two main political parties represent the bargain the United States has accepted in order to make things simple enough that most everyone can decide on one of them. Third parties represent the change that is needed that is only understood by the few who bother to care about politics while standing up for what they really believe is true despite what the rest of the country has accepted.

Sadly, all political parties are looking for complete control over the government. Think monolithic versus modular and think about how unstable and vulnerable most OS's are compared to any *BSD. (I'm sure you love analogies.) Until we can individually assign cabinet positions, judges, and all the other move makers in Washington, we're just going to have to jump on one of the two bigger bandwagons until something really important comes along that needs our attention. Right now that's the exclusive debates and ruinous ideas of federal healthcare, and my wagon happens to carry a Libertarian bumper sticker.