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."
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Of course the republicrats can restrict their debates however they wish. They can't accept federal funds to pay for all the setup, and then exclude other candidates however. Which is what this university is doing. If it were private money, that would be different...
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;
They're only spending $2M on a Presidential debate? We spent $4.2M on the VP debate. Cheap bastards.