Posted on 10/11/2004 4:55:37 PM PDT by LibertyRocks
Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case
BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 11, 2004
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/2962
The third and final debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry has been thrown into doubt after a state judge in Arizona ordered a hearing on whether the event, scheduled for Wednesday, should be halted because the Libertarian Party's nominee for president has not been invited.
Judge F. Pendleton Gaines III instructed the debate's hosts, Arizona State University and the Commission on Presidential Debates, to appear in his courtroom in Phoenix tomorrow to respond to a lawsuit filed last week by the Libertarians.
"I'm happy so far with the way things are going," an attorney for the Libertarian Party, David Euchner, said in an interview yesterday. "He did not have to sign that order. The fact that he did is a good sign."
The suit argues that the university is illegally donating state resources to the Republican and Democratic Parties by serving as host for a debate that showcases Messrs. Bush and Kerry but excludes their Libertarian counterpart, Michael Badnarik, who is on the ballot in Arizona and 47 other states.
"They can't have debates that make public expenditures for private benefit," Mr. Euchner said. "A.S.U. is spending its money in violation of the state constitution."
A spokeswoman for the university, Nancy Neff, said she was unaware of the hearing tomorrow. "If that's the judge's order, then we'll be there for sure," Ms. Neff said.
While the university is constructing a massive press filing center and has incurred large expenses for security, Ms. Neff insisted the debate will take place at no cost to taxpayers.
"We are not spending public money on the debate. We have underwritten it using private donations, in-kind gifts, and private foundation funds," the university spokeswoman said. "The price we've been working with is $2.5 million, and that's what we've been trying to raise," Ms. Neff said.
Major sponsors for the third debate include a heavy equipment maker, Caterpillar Inc.; a local utility company, APS, and an Indian tribal group that owns two casinos near Scottsdale, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
Ms. Neff acknowledged, however, that the university has yet to raise all the funds required for the event, which is scheduled to take place at an auditorium on the school's Tempe campus, just east of Phoenix. "We're still raising money even as we work on it," she said, adding that at the last tally about $2.3 million had been pledged.
Mr. Euchner said the university's claim that no public money is involved is laughable. "The fact they've got their hat in hand helps us," he said. "The evidence is pretty clear that if there's a shortfall here that A.S.U. is holding the bag. They made, essentially, an interest free loan."
Mr. Euchner said the state's involvement in the debate is part of what many Libertarians see as a pattern of improper use of government funds to promote the two major parties. "Taxpayers foot the bill for the Democratic and Republican national conventions," he complained. "Anything they can get the taxpayers to pay for that way, they do it."
Several legal experts said the Libertarians face an uphill battle in attempting to use the so-called gift clause of the Arizona Constitution to block Wednesday's debate.
"It doesn't strike me as a very strong ground," an author of a book on the Arizona Constitution, Toni McClory, said. "It's not a violation of the gift clause if the state is getting something of real value." While state universities have been hosts to presidential debates in the past, Arizona State is the only one to do so this year.
Ms. McClory, who teaches at a community college near Phoenix, said the publicity surrounding the debate might be considered a substantial benefit to the university. "It's giving the university a great deal of public exposure," she said.
A law professor at the University of Arizona, Robert Glennon, said the court dispute is likely to turn on whether Arizona State is seen as discriminating against the Libertarians. He said offering the Libertarians the use of a similar facility on campus would probably be enough to fulfill the state's obligations.
"So long as the state has a nondiscriminatory policy, the fact that one particular party or one religion uses it is of no consequence," Mr. Glennon said. The professor noted that the requirements to bring a case for abuse of taxpayer funds are often lower in state courts than in the federal system, but he said he was surprised that the judge granted the Libertarians a hearing.
Judge Gaines was appointed to the bench in 1999 by Gov. Jane Hull, a Republican. In his show-cause order issued Friday morning, the judge also required that the university and the debate commission be served with the lawsuit by Friday afternoon. An attorney for the university accepted service, but security guards at the commission's headquarters in Washington ordered process-servers to leave the building, Mr. Euchner said.
Indeed, Mr. Badnarik and the Green Party nominee, David Cobb, were arrested Friday night after they crossed a police line at the presidential debate in St. Louis. Mr. Badnarik said he was trying to serve the lawsuit on a representative of the debate commission. The two candidates were released after being given tickets for trespassing and refusing a reasonable order from a policeman.
The commission, which is a nonprofit corporation, has insisted that it applies nonpartisan criteria to determine who is invited to the debates. The rules require that candidates have at least 15% support in national polls to qualify. None of the third-party candidates this year has met that hurdle.
Critics of the debate commission assert that it is little more than a front for the major parties. They note that the Democrats and the GOP issued a joint press release announcing the creation of the "bipartisan" commission and describing its purpose as facilitating debates between their "respective nominees." More recently, the commission has described itself as "nonpartisan," although its adherence to that standard remains in question.
Last month, a spokesman for the debate commission told the Sun that the panel could not comply with a provision in the agreement worked out between the Bush and Kerry campaigns that dictated the makeup of the audience for Friday's town meeting debate be one-half "soft" supporters of Mr. Bush and one-half "soft" supporters of Mr. Kerry. "We can't use soft Bush and soft Kerry supporters because we are a nonpartisan group, not a bipartisan group," said the commission spokesman, who asked not to be named. "We have said we'd use undecided voters."
In an interview with CNN last week, the editor in chief of Gallup, Frank Newport, said that more than 90% of those in the audience for Friday's debate had stated a "soft" preference for either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry. Mr. Newport did not indicate whether supporters of the independent candidate Ralph Nader or of Mr. Badnarik were considered for the audience.
In August, a federal judge in Washington sharply criticized the Federal Election Commission for ignoring evidence of bias on the part of the debate commission. Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. noted that in 2000 the debate commission gave security guards "facebooks" with pictures of third-party candidates and instructed the guards to prevent those in the photos from entering the debate venues, even with valid audience tickets. "The exclusion policy appears partisan on its face," Judge Kennedy wrote.
In a national poll taken in September, 57% of likely voters favored including presidential candidates other than the president and the Massachusetts senator in the debates. The survey, conducted by Zogby International, found 57% of likely voters in favor of adding Mr. Nader, and 44% in favor of including Mr. Badnarik.
" decision between doing hard work to get up to 15%, or going judge shopping, the LP chose the latter. "
With the FEC controlled by only democrats and republicans and the media by democrats, how do you suppose any one is going to manage to get to some arbitrary percentile? This isn't by accident It is meant to silence opposition. And it's been very effective.
So far.
One third of this country does not agree with the party line.
It would be an easy bet to say that the first time every flake gets a microphone at the debate would be the last time people are willing to sign the petitions of flakes to even be on the ballot in the first place.
If that is true then such a debate would serve a useful purpose. The whole point of events such as debates is to enable voters to identify the flakes.
In my own opinion an actual debate, even with flakes present, would be a huge improvement over the "debates" we have now, which are about as authentic as "professional wrestling". Listening to the "serious" candidates repeat their talking points and and their blatant lies ad nauseum makes me wish for a real debate.
The FEC has nothing to do with the debates.
Yet another crybaby, whining about how they can't get their way...
No, I think the entire political infrastruture is operating to maintain an exclusive two party system. That includes both parties, Congress, The FEC, The CPD, the court system, the mainstream press et al. A two party system is as engrained in the culture as the NFL or MLB is.
I agree. And people need a viable place to go when their party leaves them behind. The Democrat party has taken a turn to the left that is about to leave all of America behind. I am not quite sure which alternative would fill the void, but if the parties were all invited to the table it opens the discussion to ideas and may pull the party away from the fringe. Same is true with the Republican Party. We need to have the dialogue!
I had forgotten that - thanks.
Also what conservatives sound like when they whine about liberal media bias.
WAAH WAAH! The media's so liberal! Hollywood actors are so liberal! They're not saying nice things about Bush! It's not fair! WAAAAAAH!
Chemist_Geek wrote: How that objective criterion is prejudicial against the lunatic fringe, I do not know...
Reply:
It is prejudicial in nature when most polls and organizations don't report on the actual numbers that the 3rd party candidates get in the polls themselves. I saw this personally working on the 2000 Presidential Campaign and again in 2002 working on a U.S. Senate Campaign.
If the pollsters don't give all the choices then how can it be fair to require 15% of the "popular" polling. For instance, if the question posed to people was; "If the election were held today, and you had to vote for the President of the United States and your choices were John Kerry or Michael Badnarik, which would you choose?"
The polls themselves, and which ones the CPD chooses to use in it's qualification of criteria is in question. If the polls themselves, coupled with factual and unbiased reporting in the media were honestly conducted then I don't think we would be experiencing the type of hostility towards the political system and the media in our nation that third party activists currently display.
Once the problem is fixed the shouts go away.
For all on this thread who are upset at having to deal with Libertarians. Stop whining and demand your representatives do their jobs and follow the Constitution when they do them. When you fix the problems that have been caused by the unconstitutional laws passed by Republicans and Democrats alike the Libertarian Party will no longer exist - because it won't HAVE TO...
In other words - do your job and we can all go back to enjoying our FREE COUNTRY!
Misty (and all):
I agree with both of you completely about needing alternative parties. I personally can't stand the Democrats because of their socialistic views, and their stance against the rights of the people to protect themselves and their communities against hostility.
And, although I am a confirmed, but "non-practicing" Catholic I can't stand the moral judgements that the "religious" right portion of the Republican Party would like to proclaim across the nation. After all, Jesus didn't throw the prostitute in jail - he forgave her for hurting herself like that in an effort to increase her self-worth and put her on the "right" path.
On the issue of Iraq - I'm still undecided as I have a friend whose husband was recently promoted to Major in the AF. So, I have strong feelings all the way around on the issue itself.
I know how horrible a dictator Sadaam was. I have personally spoken with a man whose family members were killed by Sadaam when he came to power and who defected during the war by delivering to us an f-16(?) in the process (He was a pilot in Sadaam's Air Force).(I will spare the details but his was a military family of some status in the old regime - it was not your typical murder scenario). I also know where L(l)ibertarians are coming from when they protest to policing the world and fighting others wars, and how our armed forces being spread out in over 100 countries puts us more at risk for attacks at home as well.
Along the immigration front I personally think that our borders should NOT be wide-open. I believe we should make every effort possible to make free-trade and the ability of people who are not terrorists and criminals able to enjoy visiting, working and learning in the United States. I also see a real need to protect our citizens who would be harmed by those entering our country to do harm, it's a difficult issue to resolve which is precisely why all sides should be brought to the table...
Besides those issues, BOTH parties constantly side-step the restraints of the U.S. Constitution. So you are definitely correct that it would be good for ALL Americans to hear the dialogue. We need to have these discussions on the issues because the avoidance of the main parties to address these problems is destroying the very fabric of our nation...
I could go on and on... (o:
Thanks for sending this article along to your list, I appreciate it. (o:
- Michelle
That is a very shaky limb on which you are perched.
If the libertarian party ever pulls more than 3-4% of the vote, then you might smell fear. What you're smelling now is indifference.
Come to New Hampshire with the Free State Project, and we'll see if we can make that happen.
I think you're right in the sense of being concerned about the Libertarian Party making a serious inroad on political offices. But I sense something deeper. I think there is fear, in the sense of being a fear of ideas. Statists really hate dissent of any sort. They wig out over the littlest things.
Remember the big brouhaha over the Dixie Chicks? That puzzled me because, after all, who really cares what any celebrity thinks? And it's not as if it changed anything; the Wargasm crowd still got their Splendid Little War®.
People with different ideas seem to be greatly feared merely for existing.
Yes, there needs to be a level all groups must be at in order to be brought to the debate or taken seriously.
Obviously, libertarians don't cut that mark. No surprise though!
Thanks. I appreciate your thoughts. I feel much the same, however, I do support the Republicans because even though we have our religious right (and I believe in God) many of the issues are not legislated, as it should be. As Ronald Reagan said about abortion....it shouldn't be a Federal issue! Many things need to stay close to home. Our government is way too invasive and as long as the Republicans honor our differences and avoid intrusive legislation I am happy.
I do agree with the decision on stem cells and partial birth abortion, but these issues have been pushed and required action. We have our bible thumpers and I personally feel that all of us would be better off with a strong value system based on religious beliefs, but our government must be judicious about passing laws when people can easily disagree without affecting others.
With regard to socialism, forget it! My ancestors fought for our rights and American value system and I will NEVER support those who would spit on our sacrifices! I am highly offended by most Democrats in government for that reason.
The two party system is best, in my view. But we also have to realize that everything in life seems to swing on a pendulum that carries us from one extreme to the other. Extremes leave many of us out in the cold. I think we need to be able to dialogue about things and the issues might be more centered when we allow others their right to speak. I can't imagine ever voting for a third party because I believe we can fight the battles within our two party system to bring them back into line. That is what is supposed to happen during the process of chosing our candidates. But look at all those who were left out of the debates even during that process. The media has too much power to shut down speech that is necessary to keep us centered. That is my basic concern and complaint. If I were given a vote about whether or not we should have more parties I would probably have to vote no. But I do want more dialogue and resent that we are all being spoon fed by a media that wants to control the outcomes.
I agree with you about the media screening. I just sent my daughter some stuff since she doesn't have much time for the news. Not that it really matters because she is a big Bush supporter anyway. I hate the MSM!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.