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
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.
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
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
We could have a whole new discussion on this. Why do you think a member of the Libertarian Party would more closely match the Democratic Party and be opposed by the Republican Party? I am honestly curious because I feel I more closely match the Libertarian Party, but feel the Democratic Party would be my opposition.
As for these debates, I don't know what positive outcome can come from this lawsuit. The college is not going to NOT have the debate. They are in a contract to do this debate and I doubt they are going to find a Judge willing to say that a State University is making any type of political contribution. Now if this was being held at a Hotel Convention center or something for free, that would be different. All that this seems to do is make the people most likely to agree with the Libertarian Party (minimum Govt. interference, let us do as we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, etc.) think the Party has abandoned them for the Democratic (only picked since the parent post picked the Democrats) mantra (If you don't like the rules, sue until you do).
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded. That much seems self evident.
Perhaps, but this is just speculation on your part.
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.
Then relax - they cancel themselves out!
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.
Incorrect. They do not "remove themselves from the main political process" - they are voting for what they believe in just like everyone else. Dust up a bit on your history, and you will find that third parties have always played an important role - from the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage, end of child labor, and many others. They always meet resistance from people like yourself who say they are demanding the impossible, but people eventually come around, realize they were right, and adjust their positions accordingly. There is a quote that I am too lazy to verify or properly give credit for, but it goes something like "The radical ideas of today are the conservative ideas of tomorrow", or some such thing.
You are a mouth-piece for the established system - which is fine if you think the established system is doing even a remotely good job. There are a growing number of us, however, that feel you are wrong.
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.
Interesting... I truly am curious - who makes up this libertarian subset of the democratic party, and what have they accomplished? The two seem to be polar opposites to me...
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
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 LP is the only third party inthe country to have gotten on the ballots in all 50 states in recent memory (this year they only have 48 or so, i think). The requirements to get on a ballot (put in place by the republicans and democrats) shunt out many third parties. Arizona recognizes three parties on its ballot (democrat, republican, and Libertarian. If Arizona State, which is a state runorganization, only gives 2 out of 3 recognzied parties a chance to debate, theres a problem - they're in effect giving goods and services (in this case, they're spending 2 million dollars and providing a location to broadcast the debateinternationally) while the arizona consitution prevents gifts or donations of state funds to individuals, groups, or corporations - and because they're excluding the third recognized party, they're promoting 2 of the parties over the third. hence, problem. You, the satanists, the green part, nader, that dude of fark, and c'thulu are not on the arizona ballot.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
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.
Frankly, I'd rather that both parties wise up and take notice of an ever increasing minority vote that is willing to vote for an good candidate that truely reflects the will of the people of the USA.
I still honestly don't see a difference in policies between voting for Gore or Bush in 2000, I see very little difference in voting records of Bush and Kerry. About the only difference is how they spin their very similar records.
So given a lack of choices between the two primary parties, my choice is to either not vote (giving the power to who ever happens to win) or voting my concious (and hope that enough other people are willing to buy into this rather than the old "wasted vote" mentality).
Why must everyone vote for the winner ?
PS. Pop quiz, who had a larger percentage of the popular vote, Bill Clinton in either 92, or 96 or Bush in 2000 ?
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
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
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.
The Libertarian party EXACTLY aligns with my ideals, why would I choose a party that "closely" aligns with my ideals!?
... that is "insightful", now I am convinced to switch parties. hehehe
You also stated. "Yes, it is so much easier to want other people to come around to your point of view than it is to dirty yourself and compromise your ideals by joining a party that has a chance of winning."
I find this incredibly funny, you think it is a cut that he chooses to voice his opinion and yet you think it is good to "dirty yourself and compromise your ideals".
Wow
:-( --- argh. Despair, I owe again.
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.
Direct away from face when opening.
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
The Green party also has interesting stands on worker protections, consumer safety, and globalization. I'm not in full agreement with them on everything, but they're not a one-issue party. Arguably, the libertarians are a one-issue party, with their solution to every problem being "more free enterprise, less government."
As to the horror of having numerous parties: look at Israel. You have several parties, with fragile coalitions between them regarding different issues. This means that you have to work with party A on issue B, party B on issue C, and so on. I don't know if that translates into less vicious politics, but it is a workable system.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Actually, in most states, the Dems and Reps don't have to jump though the hoops, and are frequently given leeway for deadlines that marginlized-party candidates aren't. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
XML causes global warming.
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded.
That's a bogus argument for several reasons. First, as someone pointed out above, Arizona (the government involved in this case) has approved one third-party candidate, the Libertarian. So none of the other third parties has a role there for this election (that's another, ballot access, problem). Second, various of the third parties have a history of joint efforts at ballot access. Third, IANAL, but it probably takes a wronged party (one that is on the ballot yet not invited to the state-sponsored debate) to have standing in a lawsuit. If, in your scenario, the Libertarian party was invited but another third party, on the ballot, was not, the best the Libertarians might be able to do is to offer some kind of friend-of-the-court argument (and I would not be surprised to see one).
I believe that your idea that third parties have a negative impact on the state of politics (from a response of yours below) is also bogus. It sounds like you are alluding to the Nader-nuked-Gore argument. If indeed that argument is true (and there is plenty of dispute on that), the only serious negative impact is on the losing 2-party candidate, certainly not politics. Even the winner must deal with a more limited mandate. On the contrary, it forces the dominant parties to be more responsive the next time; that is a positive impact on politics as a whole. And such responsiveness is extremely unlikely when attempted from within today's primary parties; alternate ideas tend to get quashed.
Couldn't you say that the Green parties solutions are "more government, less free enterprise?"
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
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;
The libertarian party wouldn't be doing this if they were in the debate, even if all the other 'third' parties were excluded. That much seems self evident. Since that's likely the case, this means its less about what the two main parties are getting and more about what the libertarians are not getting. Which makes the whole thing bullshit from an ethical standpoint.
What brings you to this opinion? Speculation? Anyway, you're dead wrong. The LP qualified for federal matching funds in 2000 and sent the check back. That's how strongly libertarians believe in their ideals, and no Libertarian candidate would participate in a debate funded by public funds.
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
Have you not looked at the current set of idiots? I'd take a McDonalds 2nd shift manager, public school teacher and just about anyone with an honest job over a bunch of lawyers and businessmen. The people at the bottom have nothing to loose by doing what they think is right. The people at the top have plenty to gain if they do otherwise.
Someone hates these cans.
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