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.
WORD UP!!!
Badnarik said it quite well, if he could vote repub or dem and sleep at night he would not be running.
By the way, I suggest going to his website, all ye naysayers, for some refreshing on the Constitution.
You may think you have it right, but Badnairk REALLY has it. I will vote for him with happy heart.
From what I understand service was attempted several times at the CPD offices in Washington D.C. Also, from what I understand the security guards preventing the second attempt were not in the building previous to that day.
CPD was also emailed, and faxed copies of the orders themselves. What was unclear on Friday night in St. Louis when Michael was arrested was whether service was actually achieved earlier in the day in Washington D.C.. (It was)
The following is from the Badnarik website. {George Getz works at the National LP office in D.C.}
The following is reported via e-mail from George Getz, the Libertarian Party communications director about his attempt to serve the CPD in D.C. today:
All:
At about 2pm ET, I hand-delivered the paper called “Arizona Case Order.” I talked to David [Euchner - the lead attorney in the Arizona case] immediately afterward and he said the other papers can be faxed later. I am now back at the office, and there’s no one here, so I’m unaware of any developments.
I will also fax the affidavit, as David and I discussed earlier.
GG
11:23PM CT
Former LNC Chair and Operations Manager for the Badnarik campaign Geoffrey Neale responded with:
Do you have a signature from anyone at the CPD?
11:27PM CT
Here is Mr. Getz’s response to Mr. Neale:
Unfortunately, no. But this guy was so hostile there was no way he would have signed it. He wouldn’t even take it in his hand, and made me just put it on the desk instead.
He wouldn’t even tell me his name!?! – he was just “Tom.”
I replied, “Tom, huh? Could you be more vague, Tom?”
However, David (our attorney) was on the phone with “Tom” at the time I came into the office, and overheard the whole conversation, so I don’t think he can deny it. The lawyer is an “officer of the court,” or whatever, and if he tells the judge that’s what happened, that better be what happened. Plus, in my affidavit I described the schmuck and his assistant schmuck pretty well, which would be very odd if I wasn’t there.
Let’s hope for the best.
George
Here is the report of the second attempt at service...
Affidavit Friday October 8, 2004 3:35 PM Statement by Samuel P. New and Margaret E. Taylor
Today at approximately 2:38PM, we entered the office building at 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW in Washington, DC in order to serve Janet Brown at the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) with papers handed down by Judge Pendleton Gaines, Superior Court Judge in Maricopa County, AZ. In the lobby of the office building at 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW. we were greeted by Officer S. Mack and another security officer. Officer Mack telephoned CPD to inform them of our visit and purpose. CPD refused to allow us to proceed to their office, on the fourth floor. We asked for the name of the person refusing to accept our materials, and the security officers informed us they did not know. We asked if we could wait in the lobby, while we placed a telephone call, we were told no, we would have to go outside. After consulting Geoff Neale, we returned to the lobby and left papers with Officer Mack, who told us that they were not accepted. We then left the building. This dialogue is documented with digital pictures and an audio cassette which was recorded in plain view, and I spoke directly into it.
[signed]
Margaret E. Taylor and Samuel P. New
[notarized in the District of Columbia]
Yes, the very nature of the two party debates is. . . um. . .
how you say. . ..
ONE sided!!!???!!!
IMHO your replies are not acceptable. [Set a false premise] Makes us FReepers think you are here to disrupt, [Imply messenger is not with the 'in' crowd] which usually happens when one or the other Party is in jeopardy. Sinkspur must have put out an SOS alert. [Try to make a false association with another not in the 'in crowd']
Does that mean you did NOT watch either of the debates?
BTW, I have highlighted your tactics well documented by the communist party on how to fight the political battle in the U.S.
How can you claim that a publicly aired national debate is private? If it is held at a public venue (ASU)then it is a public venue regardless of who funds it. The public board has to approve an event such as this before any funds can be solicited.
I recognize the CPD is private. The deal between Democrats and Republicans to even hold the debates covered 30 pages of scripted instructions. Even if the debates are privately funded, the public broadcast rights are paid by the news networks. So it is a profitable debate for the CPD.
Then it is very narrow minded that the so called representitives think that 2 partys and 2 candidates are some kind of choice. It goes to show why 50% of eligible voters choose not to vote because given the 2 choices they can't distinguish between who puts on the left sock first and who puts on the right sock first. One for all and all for 1.
My question here is why is a private organization given exclusive rights to scripting and televising a public national presidential debate? It is big money driven.
Considering PBS could host the debates but then because they get public funding they would HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL CANDIDATES.
Private sponsorship allows exclusions. But again a public debate should have no exclusions other than big money party backers dictate the lights camera and action.
That is my struggle here with this. How can America have a truly Democratic election process without including all candidates in a mutual public forum?
I see the network news devote Kerry and Bush an equal minute every night for sound bites. But the news also recognizes that because of the big money influence big party candidates spend millions of dollars for ads and that is profit motivation to perpetuate campaign news.
3rd party candidates are excluded from network news because they generally do not buy political ads, so they don't contribute a newsworthy revenue bonanza.
A nationally televised public debate forum gives each candidate a chance before the same cameras. My contention is since they have little financial resources, their exclusion is based upon royalty vs peasants. Kerry looks down on us who make $200k a year. He also looks down on a candidate who is not a millionaire either. Heaven forbid he have to share a stage with an educated peasant!
I propose that future debates be hosted by PBS. That way the broadcast rights that are negotiated by the media for inclusion in televising the public event, hosted by private entities, go to the public dole rather than profit by the CPD.
I never thought the defense of Democracy in our nation would be malaised more than what I have seen posted by some narrow minded individuals on this site. I thought we were all for equal voice in government affairs and want the best possible representation available. Seeing the repressive remarks makes me realize that most are not open to allowing political perspective whom they disagree with equal forum. I am voting for Bush. But does anyone have any really fresh ideas for our nation? I guess the people won't get to find out because most people are happy with the status quo.
determination in a Libertarian is a wonderful thing.
There was no such debate televised nationally where the Libertarian Candidate Badnarik was given platform with Bush or Kerry.
Hopefully something will be done about their resistance because they should not be able to get away with that when no one else can. Thanks for the information.
Tedious, you are tedious. How 'bout telling us what you think the CFR is about, hmmm?
Just try running out onto the field at one of the ASU football games, and that is not even a 'privately sponsored event'!
Turkey knows that.
Yep, it provides countless entertainment possibilites for me.
Libertarians! One web page offers links to critical articles but they don't come through, LOL.
But there were two nationally televised debates with Mr. B. He cannot claim he was not given national exposure.
I agree -- but you have to understand, all that these idiots have to do is change the venue to another state --- and the problem goes away for them.
This is a Libertarian subject thread.
And how do you suppose they will get their message out and gain relevancy if they are constantly excluded from the national stage and they are constantly marginalised by the duopoly of the major parties.
It's like the two Ugly Sisters keeping Cinderella from the Ball.
All that is needed is to ensure that ASU has enough donations to cover. They already have 2.3 of the 2.5 pledged so only $200k left. Easy money.
If they fall $100k short, then their suggested remedy would be to refund the LP members their share. That would work out to about Two cents each; about what a Libertarian's thoughts are worth.
Yes there is, silly. You thought it was ironic that the Libertarian took something to court. You (being naive or ignorant) think that that fact makes it ironic.
It turns out that Libertarians believe in working within the system (the system being the legislature, courts, etc.) and this stoy is an example of working within the system.
The fact that they are taking it to the courts underscores the fact that they are working within the system.
But if you mean that Big L libertarians agree with smoking bans and martha burke's attempt to force augusta CC to accept women, then yes, this is right along those same lines.
I don't know what you are smoking, but I suggest you give it up, at least until it is decriminalized by someone (not Freepers, nor me, maybe libertarians)...
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.