GaryJohnson brings antitrust suit against Commission on Presidential Debates, GOP and Democrat Party

[GALTGULCH8]

Gary Johnson and his running mate, former superior court judge JIm Gray, have brought an antitrust lawsuit against the Commission created by the major parties for excluding anyone from the presidential debates who is on enough states to theoretically win 270 electoral college votes.

Judge Gray will make the case in court.

http://tinyurl.com/8oxdkoc

http://www.facebook....LPVP?ref=stream

[Bryce]

I wonder if there are many libertarians who understand the problem with this.

[Selene]

I wonder if there are many libertarians who understand the problem with this.

I am listening...I see a few serious issues in invoking a Federal Anti-Trust statute if that is what you are getting at?

[9thdoctor]

I love the irony. Is it ok to call an opponent out on their hypocrisy in this way? I had a debate on OO about whether it was ok to bust someone for drugs if...there were various scenarios, I argued against, generally speaking. But if you could bust Nancy Reagan for drugs, if she was sparking/shooting up in between "Just Say No" pronouncements and you had it on camera, I mean that's freakin' obligatory. But is the Commission of Presidential Debates a business? Doesn't anti-trust only apply to business?

[Selene]

This could develop into an excellent thread.

[Reidy]

In a similar vein, Robert Nozick took his landlord to rent-control court in Cambridge some time in the 1980s.

[Bryce]

I wonder if there are many libertarians who understand the problem with this.

I am listening...I see a few serious issues in invoking a Federal Anti-Trust statute if that is what you are getting at?

Yes, exactly. Edit: On "moral" grounds, not legal.

I skimmed the comments on the Ron Paul site and I didn't see any condemnation of it. I believe that most who endorse free markets don't have a clue what free markets are. And the few who do and who have a big stage should advocate capitalism with unimpeachable credibility. But libertarianism is a nebulous mess of ideas so I think I'm giving Gary Johnson undue credit.

[Robert Campbell]

In a similar vein, Robert Nozick took his landlord to rent-control court in Cambridge some time in the 1980s.

The likely difference being that, shortly thereafter, Nozick stopped calling himself a libertarian.

Robert Campbell

[studiodekadent]

There is nothing wrong with what Johnson is doing.

The Commission Presidential Debates is hardly a private sector entity.

[Reidy]

Yes, there is. He's making himself look like a crank and a loser. He'd do better to get the minimum ten or fifteen percent in the polls to qualify for an invitation.

[GALTGULCH8]

Shouldn't the criteria for being included in the presidential debates to be on the ballot in sufficient number of states to theoretically be able to get the required electoral college votes to become president rather than a certain percentage in polls?

After all in order to get on the ballot one has to get enough signatures of registered voters. The Libertarian Party has succeeded in doing so as Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 47 states so far and is contesting objections in three others over objections by...wait for it... the GOP who are the same ones who shut out Ron Paul delegates in Tampa and during the delegate selection process.

I registered Republican so that I could vote for people to become delegates who were Ron Paul supporters. They realized they had to vote for Romney on the first ballot in Tampa. The Mass GOP removed all the 17 properly elected delegates and replaced them with Romney people who had been out voted during the selection process.

In Tampa the GOP tried to change their rules in the middle of the process when Ron Paul met the 5 state requirement in order to be nominated from the convention floor so he could speak for fifteen minutes. The GOP tried to change it to a 8 or ten state requirement but was foiled so they instead invalidated the Maine convention results.

I just heard Gary Johnson in an interview and he said he ran initially as a Republican and was saying the same things that Ron Paul was saying but they were both marginalized. He was also ignored. So he switched to the Libertarian Party in order to give the voters a chance to vote for someone who held the same views as Ron Paul.

He didn't indicate that while Ron Paul is prolife and anti abortion, Gary Johnson is consistently pro choice.

I may be mistaken but I think that the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank influence the main stream media to shut out any candidate who advocates a full audit of the Fed and possible abolition of the Federal Reserve.

To reiterate I find your advocacy of the establishment nonsensical polling requirement for inclusion in the presidential debates to be egregious.

When people go to vote they will find Gary Johnson on the ballot in at least 47 or 48 states plus D.C. I think he should be included in the debates.

Some would call him a spoiler. I think any vote for Romney would ensure a Obama re election and that Gary Johnson would easily out debate and out vote Obama. Do you know what Gary Johnson's plans are in detail?

www.garyjohnson2012.com

[Robert Campbell]

The Republican party Establishment needs no pressure from the Federal Reserve System to behave like the Republican party Establishment.

It did turn out, though, that the talk about Ron Paul and Mitt Romney being tight personally was considerably exaggerated.

Precisely becaue the Commission on Presidential Debates is not really a private-sector entity, the Federal courts will most likely rule that it's no more subject to anti-trust laws than the Department of Defense, or the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Robert Campbell

[Reidy]

Shouldn't the criteria for being included in the presidential debates [include being] on the ballot in sufficient number of states to theoretically be able to get the required electoral college votes to become president rather than a certain percentage in polls?

I don't see why. Getting on the ballot requires an electorally negligible number of signatures and is not proof of serious prospects. Johnson is a case in point. He's on the ballot in a lot of states, but the the primaries this year told him to forget about the presidency. The voters did not think he out-debated the first-tier candidates. The current criterion (minimal support in the polls) strikes me as a much better way of keeping things interesting to potential voters.

[GALTGULCH8]

R,

As you may agree, the entire population has been led to believe or I might say indoctrinated to believe in the Establishment.

One person came along, Ayn Rand, and held a more rational albeit contrary view. Millions have read her books and some of them came to see things as she did. Ron Paul was influenced enough by her work or at least Atlas Shrugged to recommend it in his best seller Revolution: A Manifesto. He did not become an Objectivist by any means but shares Rand's advocacy of individual freedom and the free market or laissez faire Capitalism.

Now we have a minor party, the Libertarian Party, running a candidate who advocates individual freedom and a limited government.

Gary Johnson was re elected by a landslide running as a Republican in a Democratic state. So in one state, New Mexico, he was exceedingly popular after his first term. New Mexico has a term limit so he had to step down after balancing their budget and cutting taxes and state spending and vetoed 750 bills.

Maybe you are correct that one must demonstrate appeal by at least 15% in polls. But given the fact the media don't report the views of Ron Paul or Gary Johnson for obvious reasons, how do you expect someone with the views of Thomas Jefferson to be widely enough known to register in the polls?

Maybe ballot status should let one into the first few debates and then let the polls decide whether one continues.

Here is a link to an article in Zero Hedge about protests against the Federal Reserve across the country which goes on about Gary Johnson too. The article states he is on the ballot in 50 states but it might be 48 or 49.

http://tinyurl.com/97mwrx4

[GALTGULCH8]

<<<"The Presidential Debate Commission (PDC) is run by former chairmen of the Democratic and Republican parties. The debates almost always exclude third-party candidates.

Gary Johnson is looking to change that.

The Libertarian candidate for president – who will be on all 50 states’ ballots this election, and who is currently polling at around 5% of the vote – Johnson (and his vice presidential running mate, retired judge Jim Gray) have filed an antitrust lawsuit against the PDC for excluding them from the debates:

The Gov. Gary Johnson/Judge Jim Gray Campaign has filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Democrats, Republicans, & the Commission on Presidential Debates for antitrust and anticompetitive acts. The voters deserve competition!

The lawsuit comes after the PDC’s failure to respond to the following letter from Johnson last month:

Dear [Commission Member]

I am writing to request that the national Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.

I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that

the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties

.

That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet

your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation

.

That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an

opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate

. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there i s no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.

Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.

As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.

Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the

self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future

.

In all due respect,

it is not the proper role of a non-elected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates

– which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary,

debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place

.

Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.

I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.

Thank you.

Governor Gary Johnson">>>

[GALTGULCH8]

Well it turns out that there will be a debate including Gary Johnson, jill Stein, Virgil Goode and the major contenders are invited:

http://freeandequal.org/blog-talk-radio/free-equal-set-to-host-presidential-debate

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:

Yes, there is. He's making himself look like a crank and a loser. He'd do better to get the minimum ten or fifteen percent in the polls to qualify for an invitation.

end quote

As much as I would like to see Gary there, I agree.

Gulch8 wrote:

To reiterate I find your advocacy of the establishment nonsensical polling requirement for inclusion in the presidential debates to be egregious.

end quote

I think it would truly detract from Mitt Romney’s chances. Gary would be attacking both of the others with some harsh arguments.

Robert Tracinski recently wrote:

Incidentally, you can see now why I am so dismissive of third-party presidential candidates like Gary Johnson, the guy the Libertarians have put forward this year. The whole idea of a Libertarian presidential campaign is based on the fantasy of bypassing the entire American political system and somehow wishing us into a small-government utopia without doing the actual job of building a viable party structure. (Or, as I have suggested, influencing an existing party, which is why I think libertarians belong as a faction within the Republican Party—as many libertarians are beginning to accept.)

end quote

I agree. The Tea Party, libertarians, and Objectivists can influence The Republican Party. Sorry, Gary. With the vote so close, and with so much is at stake in 2012 we cannot waste our votes on Mr. Johnson. President Obama’s lead has narrowed, both nationally and in the swing states, to two points just a few days before the first Presidential debate this Wednesday.

See you at the polls . . . and in the theatres to watch “Atlas Shrugged,” and “Les Miserables,” (with Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Ann Hathaway, and Amanda Siegfried.) The trailers look good for both movies.

Peter

[Selene]

It's just not fair...pout, pout! These stupid voters are at fault!

We are victims of this system...we should be given special consideration because we have the better ideas!

Grow a set of balls, or, ovaries and get out amongst the voters, your neighbors and your friends and convince them you are the better choice.

And, raise money, or, risk your own and put commercials on to advance our cause.

Stop sitting on the sidelines and whining!

Geez

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

Voters may not be stupid, just more than likely indoctrinated by their parents, the clergy, the main stream media, the politicians and just don't know any better. But society has changed to some extent. There are opportunities to be exposed to better ideas.

So many internet sites which are thought provoking, like this one.

I assume that those who are aware of the libertarian tradition or the Objectivist tradition or the Austrian tradition or the free market tradition will let others know about it.

Just takes time we may not have before its too late and we enter another dark age.

Can you conceive of Obama targeting those of us who are critical of his policies and locking us up without charge or access to Courts?