Libertarian Candidate Excluded From Debate For Refusing Corporate Donations

fishdan writes "I'm a long time Slashdot member with excellent karma. I am also the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in the Massachusetts 6th District. I am on the ballot. I polled 7% in the only poll that included me, which was taken six weeks ago, before I had done any advertising, been in any debates or been on television. In the most recent debate, the general consensus was that I moved a very partisan crowd in my favor. In the two days since that debate, donations and page views are up significantly. Yesterday I received a stunning email from the local ABC affiliate telling me they were going to exclude me from their televised debate because I did not have $50,000 in campaign contributions, even though during my entire campaign I have pointedly and publicly refused corporate donations. They cited several other trumped up reasons, including polling at 10%, but there has not been a poll that included me since the one six weeks ago — and I meet their other requirements."

Comments

Re:Why?

[NemosomeN]

In a voting system where the second place and third place get a voice, Ron Paul would get a lot more votes. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for nobody. In a parliamentary system, Ron Paul's followers would have a real reason to vote for him. In first past the post, there is no such incentive. Also, Ron Paul is insane.