On June 22, 2015, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party and an organization known as Level the Playing Field (formerly Americans Elect) filed suit against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The basis of the lawsuit is the claim that the CPD puts forth rules for inclusion in the presidential debates which are unfairly exclusionary.
The CPD markets itself as being non-partisan; however, it has proven itself to be bi-partisan by excluding presidential candidates who have a mathematical chance of being elected President of the United States. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s 2012 presidential nominee, has been working for inclusion in upcoming presidential debates since they shut him out in 2012. Through his Our America Initiative, he has been raising money to file a lawsuit himself and also has a petition people can sign who are supportive of having the presidential debates to be more inclusive rather than exclusive. Our America Initiative is still intending to file his suit utilizing a different argument for inclusion.
Speaking about yesterday’s lawsuit, Gary Johnson said, “This first step will increase the pressure on the Commission on Presidential Debates. The next step will be to file the complaint that will challenge the CPD directly on the basis of long-standing anti-trust laws. Opening yet another front in the battle for fair debates is a great development. The more pressure we can apply to make the nationally-televised debates open to all credible, qualified candidates, the better.”
The multi-pronged legal challenge, a critical element of the effort is a grassroots and public awareness campaign to mobilize thousands of Americans to let the Federal Elections Commission, the CPD, debate sponsors and the news media to know that the two-party control of the debates must end. Polls show that a majority of Americans today say that neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party represents them. That majority deserves an opportunity to see and hear qualified third party and independent candidates from the national debate stage.
There has not been a third-party challenger in the presidential debates since Ross Perot and since he received such a high voting percentage, the rules for inclusion in the debates changed dramatically to be more exclusive. The objective has clearly been to keep third-party candidates out of the media and out of the debates, thereby discrediting them as serious or viable candidates. Yet, Gary Johnson did have a mathematical chance to win the presidency because he was on enough ballots in the nation and many feel he should have been given the platform in the presidential debates. The key problem Johnson faced was the CPD’s rule that he reach a minimum of 15 percent in national polling; yet, his name was not used in the polls the CPD used.
“It’s the little rules that nobody can see that make all the difference,” plaintiff Peter Ackerman of Level the Playing Field, told TIME in an interview, suggesting that the debate rule could be the unseen panacea. The influence of the presidential debates cannot be discounted as to affecting the outcome of a presidential election. Ackerman’s Level the Playing Field would like to see the Democratic and Republican nominees face off with the third-party candidate with the highest polling or with the most public signatures.
“The FEC has had Plaintiffs’ administrative complaint for over nine months (284 days), and yet has taken no action on it even though [Federal Election Campaign Act] requires the agency to act within 120 days,” the lawsuit states. “The FEC has also effectively pocket-vetoed a separate, but related, petition for rule-making requesting that it amend its debate regulation to prohibit the use of polling as the sole means of access to presidential debates. The FEC is apparently ignoring the petition for rule making even though it too was filed more than nine months ago; even though 1,251 independent individuals and organizations – all but four of whom were unknown to Plaintiffs – filed comments supporting a rule-making; and even though the only commenter opposing the proposed rule-making was the CPD itself.”
This article is reposted with the author’s permission from examiner.com.
