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?
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.
"Mr. Speaker, I move that we... pour a bowl of hot grits down our pants!"
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
ya, edit a video and insert yourself answering the questions, as if you are part of the debate. you'll have to somehow avoid the copyright trolls, but I think it could be fair use...
This is ABC's decision. As a Libertarian surely you wouldn't want to interfere with the choice that a private company made.
Ahh, yes, that old trotted out stupid fallacy. If you don't want a government to interfere in a decision, that must mean you think every decision made by a corporate entity should be met with a tub full of KY-jelly and a re-enactment of the scene from goatse.
For your information, it is possible to object to a decision, or even something someone said, without asking a government to back up your objection with violence. It's even possible to arrange a boycott, or a protest outside a studio, or any number of other private or popular actions in protest of a decision you don't like, yet none of those require the invocation of coercive force.
Not that I'm really much of a liberatarian in many ways. But this stupidity always really irritates me.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
You see, you're playing the same game the 2 party system wants you to. You lump everything into "republican" or "democrat" and then, once you've placed a person, idea or proposal into it's basked you pick the most extreme ideas in that party and make a strait line from A to B. He's libertarian, which is the same as republican, which is conservative... Nazis... HE WANTS TO KILL THE JEWS!!!!
Well fuck... you're wrong. Libertarians are not republicans. Libertarians just have some ideas that are more congruent with the republican party than the democratic party. On many issues libertarians are much more liberal than Democrats will ever be. Gay marriage for example... Libertarians don't even think marriage should be something the government has anything to do with. Mary a goat for all they care. That's between you and your religion.
Then you get into this nonsense about the station should have free speech. Sure, they should. But so does this fellow. They can exclude him from the debate, and then he has the right to make a big stink about it and make them look like shills for the 2 major parties, which in fact, they are. It's not like he's suing them. And even if he were to... there's no 100% right way to be a libertarian. He can have his own views, and be as Libertarian as he wants to be. Just because you're libertarian doesn't mean you want to shut down public schools and start selling missile launchers at the local walmart tomorrow. There's plenty of middle ground.
Climb out of our political parties sand trap and start think for yourself for a change.
They should pass a law that mandates that anyone who broadcasts a debate must include Libertarians.
No matter where you go, there you are.
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.
Wtf are mod points??? Dude he doesn't accept any mod-points or donations RTFA you insensitive clod.
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.
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.