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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @04:33PM
Uh, yeah. These are people vying for the office of the highest official in our government. They're trying to become public officials whose policies will affect the lives of 300+ million people on a daily basis, so I have absolutely no problem with the government (us, their prospective future employer) forcing them to go on national television to discuss the policies they plan on implementing. Or rather, consider it a job interview, because thats what it is, if they don't go to the interview they're automatically ineligible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @09:35PM
consider it a job interview
Yes.
forcing them to go on...
At a minimum, have a podium/chair for each candidate with that candidate's name on it.
An empty podium clearly means "I didn't care enough to show up".
...national television
Don't stop there.
Make sure it is on *broadcast* media (not just 1 corporate cable media outlet).
Further, go back to the Fairness Doctrine and make *all* media outlets[1] "operate in the public interest"--or lose their licenses to the public airwaves|public rights of way over which their cables are laid.
[1] A channel|network doesn't want to show the debate live?
Do a delayed presentation within a day or so.
(Even better for some folks.)
...and have the FCC make sure it is streamed and that there is an online archive for folks like me who haven't bothered with TeeVee for years and years.
Not just video; audio MP3s too.
Full text transcripts as well.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]