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.
If they cancel the LP will gain votes from potential Bush voters. They won't cancel. A judge will be coerced, or bribed to allow the debates.
Definitely hasn't been for those with weak hearts.
That is not the LP point. They care naught that all candidates participate. There remedy says to include them or refund share of the public money.
You are very welcome.
>>Show me chapter and verse where the Constitution says all fringed ideologues have a right to be heard.
For that matter, I doubt that there is a sentence in the Constitution that says when two people (or candidates) agree to meet at a certain place, date, and time to discuss issues, that ALL other interested persons ALSO have a right to speak at that SAME place, date, and time.
Yeah the libertarians just might make fishing for bottom feeders, a good sport again...
Improved on your sentence.
Having those two at the debate would not in any way harm President Bush's run at a 2nd term.
But, and this may be the most important part of it, it would totally piss off those who have an automatic reaction against Libertarians.
That alone is reason enough.....
redrock
Which ones, please, referencing the recent debate Mr. B. was in on 10/6?
If a candidate is so fringed then give them the same opportunity in front of the cameras to make an a$$ of themselves. You might be surprised that your so called fringe candidates are highly educated and probably would be a formidable challenge to the caviar eating selectees.
If lunatic fringe becomes apparant........ the people can decide to nix them. But IMHO, Kerry is lunatic fringe, but has big money behind him and an agenda that can undo over 225 years of investment in our constitutional republic.
It is a farce that Americans have become conditioned to believe our election process has a choice between 2 choices who broker deals all the time with only their survival in mind. A 3rd or 4th candidate in the mix would expose the good ol boys club.
Afghanistan just had elections with 12 choices on the ballot. The people all campaigned to large crowds and were given access to the media equally. Could we say that perhaps Afghanistan has become more democratic than Americas 2 party choice election?
The Devil's Lawsuit
There was a construction worker who was working on a building when he fell 15 stories to his bloody death. He arrived at the pearly gates and St. Peter said ''Oh, I am sorry, my son. But you have been sentenced to hell. The worker agreed -- not like he could do anything else -- and he was on his way.
When he arrived, the devil looked at him and said, “Ah! A new slave. We shall burn you and throw you in the fiery pits.” Then the worker replied, “That wall could use a bit of patching. I could fix it first and you could throw me in the pit afterward.” So he fixed the wall. Satan, intrigued, asked, “What else can you build?” So the construction worker went about his job and made many improvements; in fact, by the time he was done, hell was a paradise. It had air conditioning, pools, balconies, you name it.
Within a few days, God phoned Satan and said, “I think there has been a mix-up. That worker was originally supposed to come to heaven.” Satan replied, “No way -- he's built all sorts of useful stuff for us. We're keeping him.” God then said, “Oh, yeah? Well, I'll see you in court. We're going to sue you for this man's soul and damages. Satan just laughed: “And where are you going to find a lawyer?”
Heh heh heh
Did you see Mr. B. in the nationally televised debate last week? He had his chance!
As I recall, one of the main points of this bill was to keep candidates' ads off of t.v./radio 60 days before the election. Right?
If so, isn't that a violation of the 1st Amendment - won't such a law tend to prevent minor parties from voicing their opinions? As it is, we haven't heard anything in Arizona on any other 3rd party than Nader and the Greens.
You could. But then the ideologues here will call you a loonitarian ideologue and start comparing you with guys who spit at people or drink too much colloidal silver.
Much better to just ignore these threads altogether. I forgot that earlier and actually thought I had one of them listening to reason. Turns out I was wrong. They were just wasting my time.
Trolls. The lot of them....
Wrong.
That's right. How dare the little people think they should get equal access to the same publicly funded venues as our Big Two Party masters... er... I mean leaders.
A or B? Which one?
Afghanistan has to worry about China killing lots of them unless they stop providing illegal drugs. 90% of what gets to China is from Afghanistan.
Cruising for a bruising!
Then tell us what the CFR is ALL about, other than money, soft money.
I agree! I think everyone should be included in the debate.
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.