Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government The Almighty Buck United States News Politics

LP files Suit To Stop State Funding Of 3rd Debate 194

Posted by timothy from the they-would dept.
Mike Oliver writes "Arizona Libertarians have filed a lawsuit that could stop Arizona State University from sponsoring the third presidential debate between George Bush and Sen. John Kerry, scheduled for Oct. 13. The lawsuit maintains that by spending up to $2 million to sponsor the event in Tempe, the university is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LP files Suit To Stop State Funding Of 3rd Debate More

LP files Suit To Stop State Funding Of 3rd Debate

Comments Filter:

  • Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:00PM (#10454157) Homepage Journal
    seems resonable to me.
    • seems resonable to me.

      True. But, I'm confused. The Libertarians believe that government should stay out of everyone's lives. Are they contradicting their mission by using the court system to make their argument?

      Yeah, I know, maybe I'm stretching it a bit, but hey, I'm bored today.

      • Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by dedave ( 609713 )
        No, because they've never claimed that they wish to abolish the court system. The government (and by extension the court system) is there to prevent coercion and/or the use of force against its citizens.

        In a libertarian world (at least as I understand it), the republicrats would be able to exclude anyone they wish from their debates, though. And I would expect that the campaign contribution rules would be laxer, so this is somewhat weird in that regard, because as far as I can see, this would all be le

        • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by bofkentucky ( 555107 )
          Pure libertarian campaign finance laws would look something like this:
          If you have the right to vote, you can give unlimited amounts to any canidate you choose, a transaction between you and someone you support.
          If you can't vote (legal or illegal alien, corporation, political party, children, special interest groups), you can't donate to politicians in money or gifts.

          Sounds fair to me, how about to everyone else?

        • Re:Hmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oyler@noSpAm.comcast.net> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @07:59PM (#10455916) Journal
          Of course the republicrats can restrict their debates however they wish. They can't accept federal funds to pay for all the setup, and then exclude other candidates however. Which is what this university is doing. If it were private money, that would be different...

      • Re:Hmm.. (Score:2, Informative)

        by AntsInMyPants ( 819105 )
        A long running libertarian theme (notice I am using the small "l" here) is that the government uses its own devices to perpetuate its own power. If there's one thing the two major parties agree on, its that competition is bad. They are stuck with each other, but the last thing they want are other major parties forming to threaten their dominance. What the Libertarian Party's actions seem to be consistant with that.

    • Re:Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sfjoe ( 470510 )
      seems resonable to me.
      This is an election year, "reasonable" is an overly optimistic expectation.
    • AS long as they also open the debate to the libertarian party candidate, the green party candidate, the satinst party candidate, that guy on fark who says hes running, and cthulu. ANd me for that matter. Id like to debate the chimp.
      • Wow, we've got a Satinist Party? I prefer silk, but hell, satin is good enough for me!

      • Re:Its reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)

        by crackshoe ( 751995 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @05:11PM (#10454723)
        The LP is the only third party inthe country to have gotten on the ballots in all 50 states in recent memory (this year they only have 48 or so, i think). The requirements to get on a ballot (put in place by the republicans and democrats) shunt out many third parties. Arizona recognizes three parties on its ballot (democrat, republican, and Libertarian. If Arizona State, which is a state runorganization, only gives 2 out of 3 recognzied parties a chance to debate, theres a problem - they're in effect giving goods and services (in this case, they're spending 2 million dollars and providing a location to broadcast the debateinternationally) while the arizona consitution prevents gifts or donations of state funds to individuals, groups, or corporations - and because they're excluding the third recognized party, they're promoting 2 of the parties over the third. hence, problem. You, the satanists, the green part, nader, that dude of fark, and c'thulu are not on the arizona ballot.
        • What strikes me as funny, is that a party that can continually get on the ballot of 45+ states still needs to jump through hoops. Why not for the Republicrats to do the whole signature thing? Why do they get a free pass?
          • I think the Big Two also need to go through these hoops. It's just that it's trivial for such well-oiled machines, and tough for the little guy.

            • Re:Its reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)

              by scotch ( 102596 )
              Actually, in most states, the Dems and Reps don't have to jump though the hoops, and are frequently given leeway for deadlines that marginlized-party candidates aren't. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.

              • An example (Score:5, Informative)

                by GimmeFuel ( 589906 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @10:32PM (#10456637) Homepage
                http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0307/illinois_ballotlaw.h tml [lp.org]

                Republican National Convention fell a week after the deadline in Illinois for candidates to be certified. Thus, if the law were to be followed, Bush would not be able to be on the ballot in Illinois.

                The Republican response: Ignore the deadline 'cause we're important. Nevermind that we'd scream like little girls if you ignored the deadline for the Democrats or a third party. We deserve a double standard, because, uhhhh...well we do.

                <voice type="record exec from South Park">
                I AM ABOVE THE LAW!
                </voice>
                • I'd be interested to see what the legal
                  justification for ignoring the law was....

  • It's about time (Score:3)

    by Oriumpor ( 446718 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:01PM (#10454170) Homepage Journal
    Squash the 2 headed chimera.
    • Much easier said than done. It'll take a constitutional amendment to the electoral system or a majority vote for a third party. The former requires that we already have fixed the problem and the latter requires a billionaire's riches and a face that TV viewers of all ages can fall in love with and trust with their social security.

      But for now the vote is consistently down the middle because the parties gradually adjust their platforms to gain support. There's no future in the "first we oust the republicans,

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:02PM (#10454178) Journal
    Well, they do have a point. Why can't the DNC/RNC get the Fortune 500 to pay for it the same way they pay for the conventions?

  • The real test (Score:4, Interesting)

    by phyruxus ( 72649 ) <jumpandlink@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:02PM (#10454180) Homepage Journal
    ..of whether the Uni is really promoting the two-party system, will be in whether they cancel, or go ahead with the Libertarian candidate included.

    Hopefully they'll include Badnarik... but will Bush and Kerry debate if they have to face a third candidate?

    • Re:The real test (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twoflower ( 24166 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:31PM (#10454448)
      but will Bush and Kerry debate if they have to face a third candidate?
      Of course not -- they signed a contract specifically excluding all third-party candidates. To do otherwise might risk breaking the hegemony of the current two-party system.

      • Re:The real test (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Tanktalus ( 794810 )

        To be honest, though, Canada nominally has a 4-party system: Conservative (centre-right), Liberal (centre-left), New Democratic Party (far left), and Bloc Quebecois (left, right, who cares, as long as Quebec is treated as the only province of importance, otherwise we're separating). And the debates, though treated "fairly" among all leaders (each leader gets the same amount of time, plus there is some round-robin debating where it's 1-on-1 between each pair), is of very little interest except for the two m

        • The Real Issue (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Bob_Robertson ( 454888 )
          free speech also means we're free to ignore you, too.

          Not at a taxpayer-funded facility.

          If this were being held privately, there would be objection but not LEGAL action taken.

          Hopefully, as with the "ballot access restriction laws", this suit will drive the debate organizers to publish objective criteria about who may and may not be permitted to "debate". Once the rules are published for everyone to see, they can be addressed.

          At this time, those rules are not published, or are merely "we only want those

        • Re:The real test (Score:2, Interesting)

          by zogger ( 617870 )
          I'd have to check to be 100% accurate, but if you don't mind just a general statistical point from memory, roughly the US voting public is in thirds, R, D, Independent. The voting age population in general only half votes. That means the R and D parties really only represent 1/6th a piece.

          The Libs have a point on this issue, technically and in my POV, anyone who is legally on the ballot [downsizedc.org] in enough states to theoretically pull an electoral win should be in all the debates, so if anyone on that currently shor
        • The other two leaders are there purely for show, I think.

          If the other two leaders are smart, they'll put the fire to the two major leaders and keep them honest. That's where the US CPD breaks down, there's no one around to talk about the failure of the drug war. No one to talk about corporate statism. Heck, considering this years debate, it would be nice to have someone bring up a domestic issue, ANY domestic issue.

    • If the Libertarians stay true to their principles, they would not accept a spot in the debate under those circumstances. On the principle of it, taxpayers are still supporting views they don't agree with. All the non-D/R/L taxpayers obviously, but also the Democrat taxpayers would still be subsidizing the Rep/Lib views, etc.

      Campaigns are a way to get your word out, but you should pay for it yourself, not force others to pay your way. Public financing of election campaigns is the worst possible solution

      • Public financing is intended to encourage all comers to have a say in the future of their country. Theoretically, it should allow those who can't afford to run, but may have valid positions, to run. In reality, it turns into another quagmire of rules and regulations which help perpetuate the two-party system.

      • And if the GOP stayed true to what it says it believes it would allow others into the debate. It's that free market think they say the love so much. ;-> And the DEMS would also agree because they say they are the ones that support the little guy. ;->
    • What about all the other 3rd party canidates, you can not just alowe one in and not the others, if they claims are right all the people running should be invited, but of cource that would eather make the debate meaningless, there are 6 people running for pres if I remember right, and if the debate is 2 hours long that is a total of 20 minutes each, or if you want to give each canidate 45 minutes of talk time then that would make the debate 4 1/2 hours long. Ya it would be intersting, but would the average

      • Re:The real test (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GimmeFuel ( 589906 )
        Think how much less time would be wasted on debates if we had only one candidate! Instead of people having to watch two whole hours of something meaningless like a presidential debate, they wouldn't need a debate at all and people could get on to the more important things like watching Everybody Loves Raymond.
      • Ah, but according to my early ballot which I looked at last night, Bush, Kerry and Badnarik are the only three on the official ballot (in that order - sigh) here in AZ. I think if he's on the ballot produced by the state, then he should be on the stage at the state university where the debate is held. If Nader had made it, I'd be all for him getting up there, too.

        This just pushes back the argument as to how one gets on the ballot at all.

        And while I generally vote libertarian, I'm not voting for Badnar

  • What am I not surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ElForesto ( 763160 ) <.elforesto. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:18PM (#10454341) Homepage
    I doubt the lawsuit would hold too much water, but it's good press coverage. The Libertarians certainly seem to know how to do that much. I personally agree with their points, but the courts often seem to be stacked in the favor of the ruling party (parties?).

    • Re:What am I not surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KilobyteKnight ( 91023 ) <bjm.midsouth@rr@com> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:27PM (#10454417) Homepage
      I doubt the lawsuit would hold too much water, but it's good press coverage. The Libertarians certainly seem to know how to do that much. I personally agree with their points, but the courts often seem to be stacked in the favor of the ruling party (parties?).

      Yes, because the ruling parties make the laws and appoint the judges. It's easy to get "bipartisan" legislation passed that makes thing hard for the other parties - as long as there aren't too many people who see it for what it is.

      I seriously doubt they will win the lawsuit, but I hope they do.

  • And this is *MY RIGHTS ONLINE* exactly how? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Oliver Wendell Jones ( 158103 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:28PM (#10454426)
    Shouldn't this be a Slashdot Politics story instead?

    I fail to see how this has anything to do with anyone's online rights...
    • Dread pirate robers and also a franchise? Was there a comedic remake I missed out on?
      • If you remember from the movie, there was no one real "Dread Pirate Roberts", every time the current DPR would get enough money to retire on, he would fire the whole crew and promote one person to be the new DPR, who would in turn hire a whole new crew who all believed him to be the true DPR.

        Well, now thanks to new developments in multi-level marketing and exciting work from home opportunities, you can also be a Dread Pirate Roberts and never have to attack a single ship at sea! That's right, all you need
    • Shouldn't this be a Slashdot Politics story instead?

      I fail to see how this has anything to do with anyone's online rights...

      I'll bite.

      What are the names of the two political entities that are responsible for *every single law* regarding the internet? Here's a clue, Libertarians are against such laws and the Green party actually likes using the internet to communicate with people.

      It's admittedly slightly specious reasoning to assume that this is why the YRO tag got stuck on this article, but with a litt
  • But then again, the Arizona Libertarians and their buddies the Arizona Free Republicans have some very interesting ideas- like wanting to convene a new continental congress to reconsider the constitution in light of 225 years of technological change.
    • WOW Great! Instead of Jefferson, Adams and Madison we can have Kenndy,Clinton's of the world writing the supreme law of the land... I am sure every lobbist will get their own little "right."

  • Next up... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by peacefinder ( 469349 ) * <alan.dewittNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @04:37PM (#10454498) Journal
    If this works, maybe I should sue the state to stop financing primary elections. Why should all the taxpayers registered as independents finance any party's nomination process?

    I'm all for making sure elections are fair, of course... but shouldn't the state at least bill the parties for the costs?
    • Washington state had a blanket primary (all candidates appear on the primary ballot; vote for whoever you want; the top vote-getter from each party advanced to the final ballot)for ~80 years before the R's & D's got it overturned. For the first time, voters had to declare a party, and vote for only candidates within a party for the primary. They *hated* it (80% disapproval).

      So on the November ballot is an Initiative to change to a Top-Two style primary--all candidates are listed, the top two vote-gette

      • Yeah, my neighbors to the north have the right idea. I also liked the initiative here in Oregon to make all state legislative elections nonpartisan, but that didn't make the ballot.
      • Prop 62 [ca.gov] (pdf) in California would do the same thing. All of the major political parties in California are against it--the Dems, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, etc. The main supporters seem to be business groups and John McCain.

        I brought this up in a diary [dailykos.com] about this over at Daily Kos a couple weeks ago, and there were some pretty good arguments against the proposition. Some worry that it can lead to extremist candidates (because in a crowded race, fringe candidates that can each get 10% of the vo
    • I'm all in favor of this. Political parties are in essence private organizations. Their candidates should only be chosen by their members. They should not get the benefit of public moneys to decide their leadership.

  • why should the Uni bear any of the cost? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cheezus ( 95036 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @05:05PM (#10454695) Homepage
    the CPD is well funded by both parties and numerous corporate backers. They should be paying the school! (leasing the venue, paying for support staff, etc)

  • No state funds being used (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bamfarooni ( 147312 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @05:13PM (#10454734)
    The debate is being paid for by the private ASU Foundation (which is distinct and separate from the state funded University), mostly with corporate donations. No state funds are being used, so I suspect the lawsuit will be quickly dispatched.

    The foundation gets most of it's money from corporate sponsors (SRP, Motorola, etc), and the occasional private individual. Since the money doesn't go directly to the candidates, I can't imagine how it'll violate any campaign finanace laws.

    • Re:No state funds being used (Score:5, Informative)

      by IO ERROR ( 128968 ) <error.ioerror@us> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @07:17PM (#10455635) Homepage Journal

      The debate is being paid for by the private ASU Foundation (which is distinct and separate from the state funded University), mostly with corporate donations. No state funds are being used, so I suspect the lawsuit will be quickly dispatched.

      If only it were that simple. The ASU foundation hasn't received nearly the $2 million this debate is going to cost. The difference is going to be billed straight to Arizona taxpayers.

      The foundation gets most of it's money from corporate sponsors (SRP, Motorola, etc), and the occasional private individual. Since the money doesn't go directly to the candidates, I can't imagine how it'll violate any campaign finanace laws.

      It probably doesn't violate any campaign finance laws, but the lawsuit doesn't say that it does. The lawsuit DOES state that it violates the Arizona constitution, which it does. Arizona recognizes THREE major political parties: Republican, Democrat and Libertarian. Any money paid by the state to benefit one or two of them is a partisan campaign contribution or endorsement and is illegal in Arizona.

    • According to this article at azcentral.com: [azcentral.com]

      "To put on the debate, the school raised more than $2 million in donations through private donors. But the complaint says those officials who solicited donations were working for the state, thus violating the law. "

  • Slippery Slope (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thunderstruck ( 210399 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @05:56PM (#10455051)
    If the Commission on Presidential Debates can set the bar to admission such that a 15% showing in the polls is required, can they not also set the bar at 51%? Is it true that an agency can spend public funds to organize and support a single party?

    This seems even more ripe for judicial review.

  • Cracked Liberty Bell (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @12:51AM (#10457383) Homepage Journal
    That's why these Libertarians, no matter how right they are, can't win any elections. Politics is a social game of leadership, which you lose by alienating everyone. I'm glad they're forcing the issue, and getting the duopoly parties to demonstrate their subsidies to the general public. But their intimidation tactic, holding the popular debates hostage, is doing their organizing as much damage as it is serving their ideology. Which keeps them from effectively representing me, even if I were to join them.

  • Cheap bastards! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @06:13AM (#10458186)
    They're only spending $2M on a Presidential debate? We spent $4.2M on the VP debate. Cheap bastards.

  • But it's okay for the libertarians to do this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CodeWanker ( 534624 ) on Thursday October 07, 2004 @08:58AM (#10458957) Journal
    Seems awfully hypocritical to me, since Cornel accepts public money and runs a 2-tier tuition scheme for in-state and out-of-state students. [cornell.edu] But the libertarians were happy to attend a debate there. Hmmm...

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close