Slashdot Mirror
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."
Not asking a question, not suggesting to act.
So what is it, just a story to tell?
With the author of the article being simultaneously the allegedly wronged party, this just sounds like whinging.
I would say, f*ck the first two! Or, do you have a very strong preference between R and D?
Paul B.
P.S. I'll wait a little bit more until changing my .signature...
These socio-economic forces work hand in hand with the same agenda. Sadly the American public thinks that there are really two controlling parties and business is on the outside of this circle of power except to write checks. The truth is that they're all one and the same.
I'm not sure if I should be terrified or elated.
One things for sure, he's got my vote just to see how a slashdotter's trolling skills stand up in the big leagues.
Can we get a Slashdot poll for this guy? I'm sure he'll hit at least 10%.
You should have accepted those donations. That doesn't means you have to listen to whoever is giving you money. In fact, if I was you, I'd take their check, and then do the exact opposite of whatever they are asking for.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Too little information here.
What are the criteria for being included in these independent polls? Does one normally request inclusion?
Have you asked ABC about these requirements?
I mean, the ABC affiliate doesn't even NEED a reason to exclude you, right? It's their station. You want to be on TV, buy your own affiliate. Right? Isn't that the "free market" at work? Are you saying they should be FORCED to let you into the debate?
Libertarians are nothing but Republicans that are upset they aren't rich/powerful enough to fuck people in the ass. They want it to be easier to get into the "Fuck you, I've got mine" club.
There are a couple problems with your story
1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that.
2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it.
3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
This is ABC's decision. As a Libertarian surely you wouldn't want to interfere with the choice that a private company made.
With a 0% chance of winning, basically you would be wasting people's time. Similarly, Jill Stein isn't a part of the presidential debate.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
You shouldn't need corporate donations to reach the $50,000 mark. You could do it with $5000 people donating $10 each. That's 0.076% of the Massachusetts population. I think it is a fairly reasonable concept that if you can't do that you are not a serious candidate.
But he wouldn't win against Cowboy Neal.
Make your own video. Post it on Youtube. Make it viral.
Ezekiel 23:20
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. It's a two party system, and the game is rigged to keep it that way.
How many parties were represented in the recent president/vice-president debates?
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
you arent being kicked out for refusing corporate donations. you are being refused because you havent even raised 50K and are polling at less than 15%.
hate to say it but if I were an ABC affiliate trying to configure the program schedule around the advertising revenue im supposed to be selling, id probably try to keep the forums brief and ensure key folks who pay me for ads get a seat. republicans and democrats will pay me for ad space, but they might not pay me much if i include 40 other no-name candidates willing to bother their candidates with actual debate.
if you're a libertarian bitching about capitalism, you might not be running under the correct ticket.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The only thing I see to support your claim that you "moved a very partisan crowd in my favor" is a single sentence:
Fishman, perhaps sensing that many in the room were swayed, told voters to consider him, despite his long odds.
That said I wish you luck, it sounds like the other two candidates are both complete jerks: "Don't vote for him because he's a REPUBLICAN"..."Oh yea? Well don't vote for him because he's a DEMOCRAT". Yup, that's how I evaluate a candidate.
Plus this is completely off topic and doesn't belong on slashdot in the first place.
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
As a libertarian he would not support government intervention (though laws, FCC mandates, etc) in these debates, but as far I can see that is not what he is asking for.
Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?
He doesnt hate corporations (atleast thats my opinion of what he believes in). He hates corporate money in politics. There is a difference between the two.
The media doesn't want to upset the applecart, especially by putting on one of those dirty 'libertarians'. Heck, even in this Slashdot article you have people erecting strawman arguments and then asking why you're upset.
But really, what it is is that the media loves the advertising money from the candidates. It's in their best interests to promulgate the idea that advertising and money wins elections, because that money is spent on them. So they go out of their way to avoid providing free advertising to any candidate who hasn't paid them for enough paid advertising.
And the two party system is a great source of the kind of fake controversy over irrelevant issues that is the bread and butter of mass media. So they don't really want that to go away either. Too much money tied up in keeping things just as they are.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?
Unless there is something else here, this sounds a bit petulant.
Creating legislation forcing ABC to permit his participation in the debate would be against Libertarian principals. Applying public pressure to revise their policy is not. I don't think you really understand Libertarian principals at all.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
His 7% of the poll can be explained pretty easily. If I didn't know any of the candidates, and I saw "Fishman", I'd vote for him just on principle.
Please go cry some where else. Requirements are there to be met, and you're not winning over any friends by crying corporate greed every time you don't get your way.
Wow way to be a total dick. Someone should kick you squarely in the balls...
Here's an idea:
1. Take the money from the companies
2. Deposit it in a bank
3. Take out money to donate (anonymously) to people and groups that are fighting against the companies that are trying to grease your hand
4. Feel good about yourself and keep on sticking it to the companies
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
They should pass a law that mandates that anyone who broadcasts a debate must include Libertarians.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Out of curiosity, what made you run third party rather than trying to fix things from within? There are obstacles either way of course, was there something that made you convinced whichever party you were closer to ideologically was irreparably damaged? Did you consider, or did you run in a republican or democratic party?
I'm sure they'd love to report on this. Also local newspapers and radio.
He is excluded because he couldn't raise a piddling $50,000. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE $50,000 COME FROM CORPORATE DONORS! The pathetic liar (a trait that is disgustingly common in right-wing candidates this year) couldn't get $50,000 and chose to blame corporations, a bizarre statement to hear from a Libertarian to say the least.
Nonsense. The differences between our two parties are so narrow, that it's a waste of time having a debate between them. The debates don't matter, hell the election itself doesn't even matter. Crony capitalists will win and civil libertarians will lose.
Does a third party candidate have a chance to win? No, but he will raise important issues, and that's what really matters.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Ask Obama.
I still believe Obama actually wanted to fix a lot of things. I think he quickly found out a few reasons why he can't make any serious change... dark secret reasons. Yeah, I know "conspiracy theory -- ignore the nut bag." I didn't vote for Obama... I voted Libertarian. But the change in Obama was remarkable and I don't think it's because 'he's just crooked like the rest of them.' I think Kennedy was the last rebel from the backstage establishment and we know how that ended up.
There's still lots of hope though. The problem is this internet thing. The establishment pretty much controls the media and all the usual stuff. But this internet thing... no one has figured out how to control it yet and it's too late to try to take it away. (Seriously, if they were forward thinking enough, they would have created an internet competitor that was 'fun, addicting and *SAFE(tm)* for public use' long ago... but now it's kind of too late. Only Steve Jobs could have pulled off a stunt like that and he's gone.
This internet thing... it may free the people yet.
Campaign contributions are a useful proxy for "does anyone care that this guy/gal is running." If nobody cares enough about your candidacy to throw you a couple bucks, the odds are very high that you're a marginal/crank candidate rather than a serious one, and candidates with no support shouldn't waste valuable time in a debate. There are other systems you could devise to filter out cranks from a political debate, but they're just as likely to be complained about by the cranks as this one.
Read my blog.
The voting system has more features than who appears on a ballot. Appearing on a ballot doesn't overcome the spoiler effect: less established parties are recursively seen as not viable and then can't establish viability. It's a predictable effect of "first past the post" voting systems.
For perspective of how low a bar $50,000 is, open secrets has the FEC data for the race. Both of the top 2 candidates have raised over $1.4 million dollars as of 2 months ago, and have likely raised a bunch more since. Even excluding PAC/other money they have raised $866k/$1.22m.
I suspect actually lots of mini-conspiracies.
Obama: I want to close Gitmo, and get the prisoners tried in a civilian court.
CIA Director: Yeah... look, that's not going to happen. We've a few skeletons in the closet there. If you did that, it'd be embarassing when they got out. I'm afraid that even if you ordered it, we'd have to stall for months. It's just reflect badly on you.
Democratic congressmen: A nice idea, but the republicans would tear us up on national security if we supported that. We've got elections in two years. Sorry, but we'd have to vote against any bill to do so.
Obama: Oh.
I'm sure there are not 500 whackjobs on the ballot. This criteria along should get someone in the debate until the number of people on the ballot really does make that impractical. There is no excuse for the media not to include a local candidate for representative that is on the ballot. No reason other than blatant partisanship.
Surely as a Libertarian, he should support the network's freedom to make up or accept any rules they like and have any speakers they want in the debates.
First step: don't be Libertarian.
I though it was called having a temper-tantrum to get attention.
...the $50,000 come from "corporations". A thousand $50 contributions would suffice. Don't you take donations at all? Where do you get your funds?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
wait what? voting IS the way to fix things from within, right? why is voting for third, fourth, fifth, or sixth parties not fixing from within? You know, the solutions to the problems we face cannot be flattened into democrat and/or republican ideology.
He is excluded because he couldn't raise a piddling $50,000. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE $50,000 COME FROM CORPORATE DONORS! The pathetic liar (a trait that is disgustingly common in right-wing candidates this year) couldn't get $50,000 and chose to blame corporations, a bizarre statement to hear from a Libertarian to say the least.
The HELL you say! A politician bending the truth to fit his own narrative?! Not in this man's America, no siree Bob!
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
... sane (i.e., non-Libertarian) ....
You are implying Libertarians are insane, yet implying democrats and republicans are sane? What rock have you been living under?
In other words, you don't agree with us, so you say ridiculous things about us and hope that no one will point out how vacuous they are.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
no shit he did not. Maybe he wouldn't win with fair treatment but the biggest problem is everybody and their dog tried their best to marginalize him and show him as a non viable candidate despite double digit support. You need a strong start in primary season if you want to get to the finish line but all the pundits did right from the start was downplaying RP's importance and tirelessly pointing to Mittens as the chosen one.
The list of mysterious errors in MSM underestimating his score or outright omissions even in the early stage, where everybody else was covered, is very long. Even Jon Stewart mocked that in one of his shows.
Indeed. In New Hampshire, we haven't had a Libertarian in a state-level or higher office since the 1990s. However, we have about forty outright-pro-liberty Republicans in the 400-member State House right now (a dozen of which are the so-called freestaters). We've had one pro-liberty Democrat get elected, too (Rep. Joel Winters, 2006-2010), and a handful of other liberty activists have run as Democrats, too.
What we've learned from New Hampshire politics: Both the major parties have pro-liberty elements; with Republicans it's taxes, spending, and firearms, with Democrats it's social freedom issues, privacy, and civil rights.* If you actually want to get elected (as opposed to just making a point by running, running as a "protest" candidate, or the like), pick a party depending on which issues you care more about. If you make it through the primary, you're guaranteed about 30% of the people will vote for you in the general just because of the party label, then you only have to worry about getting that additional 20%+1 to win. Running as a third party, you have to work for every single vote to make the full 50%+1, and first you have to waste your time petitioning just to get on the ballot. I've known a couple Libertarians who worked their asses off---visiting every single registered voter household in their district (one of which was 9,000 people)---only to get less than 4% of the vote.
* That's the breakdown on the state level here; YMMV in other states of course.
Liberty in your lifetime
I think your first line there is a little bit off. Allow me to fix that for ya.
Obama: I want to close Gitmo, and transfer all of Gitmo's defining human rights violations to a new facility in Illinois.
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/creating-gitmo-north-alarming-step-says-aclu
some detainees might be held for military commission proceedings in Illinois while others might be held at Thomson [Correctional Center in Illinois] indefinitely without charge or trial.
:(){
;the only reason why Obama can't actually change things is the same reason why people who enter the presidential office looking young come out looking haggard withdrawn and spent.
The President of the USA is the least powerful, least useful position of the USA. you get all the blame, all the responsibility yet you can't actually change anything without congress's approval.
seriously sure Obama was able to push and prode enough congresscritters to get the republican designed health care passed. look at what else he was able to do beyond that.
Fix the economy. nope everyone wants it to sit just like it as because if it breaks while their touching it it is their fault.
get us out of forgien wars. nope because the right wing wants to stick their noses in everyone else's business. (look at the right wing trying to undo liberties)
Close down gizmo, nope because no one wants to take responsibility for the prisoners .
Of course he is more than willing to pander to the democrats corporations(hollywood, DMCA, etc)
Pick which set of civil liberties you want taken. the R's are going after one group, the D's another.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
,,, his web site commentary just because I don't want to give out my identity to some third party web site?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I am running for US Senate in Wisconsin as a Libertarian and have the same problems. They want 500k in contributions and 10% in polls I will never be in. It is quite frustrating.
So I'm guessing you think every anti-religion atheist also thinks building churches should be illegal? That's the same line of logic your assuming there. I'm not a libertarian but I'm amazed at how intellectually dishonest people are in politics, and people gang up on libertarians in particular because I think libertarians just make them really, really angry--the permissiveness of libertarians combined with the lack of economic control liberals want seems to inflame everybody.
Where did you read that ridiculous idea? Really. Where?
is there a serious libertarian politician who wants to curtail intellectual property law? everyone i've seen (i.e. all recent LP prez candidates and a few others) has been very pro-patent since it creates private property (which, to them, is freedom by definition) and helps business. or maybe it's because they have an authoritarian mindset and believe that IP puts more power in the hands of Effective Businessmen, who are good and virtuous by definition. whatever. is there one?
sure, i've seen libertarian bloggers complain about patents, but even they often would want to keep it around for "practical" (read: selfish) reasons. and not the ayn rand kind of selfish either; this is the kind of selfish where they (think they) benefit from state-granted monopolies, so they conveniently want to keep it around.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Or a single corporation, which is considerably easier, thus the point of the GP. Money is not an indicative of the number of people interested in you. It is an indicative of the capital interested in you.
Under the current rules, third parties can never win or achieve anything in the US.
What you yanks need is electoral form, including:
1. Compulsory voting. It tends to suppress the loony extremes (of all sides) and makes politicians start pandering to the politically apathetic majority rather than extremist nut-cases. If you ever take the time to look at the american political system from the outside you'll realise what an amazingly good thing this would be. Your politicians are scary...they're completely insane. It's terrifying that these lunatics could be elected to positions of power in the world's one remaining superpower....it's even more terrifying that these people could have that power at a time when the america empire is collapsing - your influence and global political relevance are dwindling.
I know many of you yanks think compulsory voting is immoral or something, that if someone's apathetic then they don't deserve the vote....but a) being politically apathetic means they just want to be left alone, they're not volunteering to be shat on, and b) they're most likely apathetic because (under the current system) it makes no difference whether they vote or not.
2. Some form of preferential voting so that voting for third-party or independent candidates is not a complete waste of a vote....You can vote for your favoured third-party candidate knowing that if he/she doesn't win, you vote will pass to your 2nd choice (and then to your third then fourth, etc choices).
The Condorcet method is good but probably beyond what the average vote can understand, Alternative Ballot is also good and easy enough for the average voter to understand.
3. State-level reform of your electoral college system - specifically eliminate winner-takes-all as an option. if 51% of the voters in a state prefer candidate A as president then that candidate should get 51% of that state's presidential votes, not 100%.
4. Paper ballots.
5. Make it harder (if not impossible) to disenfranchise people from their vote. Dropping people from electoral rolls should only be done *individually* never in bulk, with hand-signed (not automated) notification from the State's top electoral official at least six months before it affects a person's voting rights (if there's an election before then, they're still entitled to vote). Notification must include the cause, and legal causes must be strictly limited. *ANY* objection by the individual should immediately re-instate their voting rights until and unless the state can show cause in court why that individual should be disenfranchised.
6. Even felons should have voting rights, even while serving their sentences - but certainly once they've done their time. This is especially important when you consider that many felonies are victimless crimes like drug use....if a law is wrong then those convicted of it need to be able to vote to get that law changed.
You also need massive campaign finance reform (in short: ban all campaign contributions above, say $50 per person per year. complete ban on contributions from non-natural persons - corporations, lobby groups, religious organisations, etc).
Finally, you've got thousands of nukes. You can afford to drop a few on FOX news' HQ. Try it, you'll be glad you did.
So the libertarian way would be that they're allowed to include or exclude whomever they want, surely?
.... You are not in debates = you don't exist....
Case in point: Two days after attending a Gary Johnson rally and subsequently planting one of his signs in my yard that night, my extended family came over for an event. As I am helping Mom carry stuff in (past the sign) This exchange occurs:
/CSB
"Gary Johnson? Who's that?"
"The Libertarian candidate for President, mom."
"Never heard of him."
The 15% is a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. How can you get 15% if you dont debate? If you dont have 15% you cant debate. o_O
you yanks
Gee, thanks.
1. Compulsory voting.
Disagree. If you can't be bothered to vote, then your voice doesn't count. Seems fair to me. Also, if you aren't going to educate yourself on the choices, I'd rather you didn't vote.
a) being politically apathetic means they just want to be left alone, they're not volunteering to be shat on
That's your own political spin.
b) they're most likely apathetic because (under the current system) it makes no difference whether they vote or not.
Your argument is if all those apathetic people voted, then they would make a difference. So it's their fault for not voting, as they are part of the problem.
Your politicians are scary...they're completely insane.
Uh huh. And I'm sure your politicians are completely rational people who never engage in polemics.
2. Some form of preferential voting so that voting for third-party or independent candidates is not a complete waste of a vote....
Agree.
3. State-level reform of your electoral college system
Agree.
4. Paper ballots.
Maybe require a paper trail, but I don't think electronic voting is unfixable. Back in 2000 in Bush vs. Gore, paper ballots took center stage at the controversy and prompted the move to electronic.
5. Make it harder (if not impossible) to disenfranchise people from their vote.
Agree in principle, although I'm iffy on your implementation.
6. Even felons should have voting rights, even while serving their sentences - but certainly once they've done their time.
Agree.
ban all campaign contributions above, say $50 per person per year. complete ban on contributions from non-natural persons - corporations, lobby groups, religious organisations, etc
Disagree. I have a libertarian bent, and freedom to associate and spend money on a common political cause fits in with that.
Finally, you've got thousands of nukes. You can afford to drop a few on FOX news' HQ.
Wow, fuck off. I'm not a fan of Fox News, but I'm not a fan of MSNBC either, and freedom of speech and the press is paramount.
Getting $50,000 in contributions may not show that lots of people support you, but not being able to get $50,000 in contributions is a pretty good sign that no-one supports you, for the reasons above.
The submitter says he's polling 7%; he's not, he's polling 7% in a poll of 401 people with a stated error margin almost as big as that 7%. The fact that he can't raise $50,000 suggests that he's probably close to the bottom of that error bound.