SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ballot Access News reports:
On August 5, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled against Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in their debates lawsuit. The case had been filed on September 28, 2015, and is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, D.C., 1:15cv-1580.
[...] The 27-page decision[Redirects to a PDF] [...] says, "Because Plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law."
[...] Footnote three, based on the judge's own research (or the research of her clerks), has factual errors. The judge relied on election returns published by the FEC, but the FEC returns do not say which candidates were [...] in states with a majority of electoral college votes, and the opinion's list of candidates is erroneous.
[...] Another factual error in the decision is on page 21. The decision says Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, lost a case over debates in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. Actually Forbes was a candidate for U.S. House.
In the comments, Richard Winger notes a similar case.
the lawsuit Level the Playing Field v FEC is still pending, before another judge, in the same court
The presidential debates were previously moderated by the League of Women Voters (1976, 1980, 1984). The Democrats and Republicans screwed things up in 1988. The Commission on Presidential Debates, a corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quintessence on Monday August 08 2016, @04:20AM
This quote is really telling though- Because Plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law.
It implies heavily that the process is a monopoly (which it is), and is differentiating markets from political activity ( yet "money is speech").
Just floored that the ruling can be made with a straight face. I wonder how much advertising slots go for during the debates?
Not to mention the actions of the CPD are in the territory of conspiracy.
I accept that there will be some brightline made with regards to who will be included in the debates, and regardless of where it is made, some people will be unhappy. In the long term though, the CPD is just digging their own grave as people move away from broadcast tv, or a coalition of third parties decide to buy network time and host their own debates, and not invite the major parties.
Welcome to political activity as commercial markets. God bless America.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday August 08 2016, @11:25AM
but then again, how is this a real debate? Nothing said can actually be legally binding. Hence, I file this under "can the candidate go X minutes without a teleprompt and looking creepy and/or incompetent".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quintessence on Monday August 08 2016, @12:39PM
I recall the League of Women Voters withdrawing their support of the debates ("The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."), and a growing set of anomalies (knowing questions in advance, deciding which questions get asked, etc.) with the CPD.
Even ignoring the participation of third parties, the major parties set the entire event as a prescripted presentation. There is very little recognizable as a debate going on, but is instead an hour long infomercial, which what they probably really want to maintain control of, third party or no.
If I were a free market type, I'd say this is actually ripe for other organizations to host their own presidential debates and sidestep the CPD completely, which leaves the judge looking like an idiot as political activity is indistinguishable from commercial markets in that case, much like corporate support of lobbying groups and whatnot. I mean if we take the judge's logic to its extreme, businesses should be forbidden from making campaign contributions. Or going the other direction, it makes a compelling case for publicly funded elections (and debates), but you can't have it both ways.
The legally binding aspect is interesting to a degree, but the consensus is that if if liar is found, well you have a selection of other liars to choose from. At best, you have the track history of the candidates to draw from, and can compare what they say to what they've actually done.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:44PM
Lots of organizations already try this -- from universities to independent news organizations to local governments. But the CPD prohibits any candidate that participates in THEIR debates from doing any others, so all you'll get at these other debates are the third parties. As long as they're getting good publicity and protection from the CPD debate no politician is going to give that up, and their party (part owner of the CPD) surely won't let them either. Although if just one broke away you'd have a hard time having a one party debate...but then they get killed by the media for "refusing" to debate, and they'll also probably get killed by the third party candidates in the alternative debate, AND they'll lose support within their own party. Lose-lose-lose.
Which is why some broadcasters are starting to get clever and mix the two together -- they'll air the real debate, but after each question pause and let their additional parties answer the same question, then they'll cut back for the next one. Democracy Now! did this last election cycle. Although I'm a bit shocked the CPD hasn't tried to shut that down yet...only a matter of time with the way IP law is going lately...