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.
How do they expect to get the message out when Mr. B is in TWO nationally televised debates and the LP never even bothers to issue a press release on the events. Did you watch them?
One Libertarian here did say he watched part of one of the two nationally televised debates that Mr. B. participated in. He didn't say why he only watched part of it, but that appears to be more than any other did. At least from the comments I have received (or lack of comments).
"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. "
Bzzzt. Sorry, wrong answer. Read my posts and don't try to put words into my mouth.
Here it is again in case you forgot it:
"Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event."
I found it ironic (and it is,btw,if you understand what irony is) that the limited government, respect the constitution Libertarians are using the government to force their way into a private event. Not that they are using the court system. You're the one who made that grand leap. So don't give me credit for you delusions. I don't want it.
Now, if they were just trying to get the event cancelled because they might be using public funds to pay for a private event, that would be one thing. But as the article states, and as bednarik's website states (do a little reading if you haven't) that they'd be more than happy to overlook the violation of the AZ law if only bednarik be allowed to debate.
So their stated principle (no public funds for private event) is little more than a wedge to get bednarik into the debate. He's against government funding a private event, but if he gets into the same publicly funded event, it's A-OK with him. Quite principled, eh??
"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)..."
Wow, clever... it almost makes up for your tenuous grasp of logic and willingness to put words in my mouth in order to win points.
Almost.
The LP sued to correct a perceived future wrong. The fact that he will be wronged is not even certain. The fact that he has been wronged is false. He may be wronged in the future (according to his filings) but then, again, he may not be wronged.
Why do you care who watched what? Taking a poll?
It would be interesting to have some post-debate conversation, but it appears that those LP'ers that want to force us to watch Mr. B. did not even bother to watch him when on national TV.
And who set THAT arbitrary limit?
Can't see it in the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech so long as 15% of the population agree with you, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Oh yes, there it is, silly me...
The exclusionary practices of the Republican/Democrat cartel in this country denies the people any real choice. It is a clear and present danger to that duopoly that a third party could hold the balance of power in this country if they were not "drowned at birth".
Incompetence on their part does not disqualify them from freedom of speech.
The Congress, I think. LOL
It's late, 'nite.
Not that it makes any difference, since not one person in 100 would even know where to find it on their TV (assuming you are correct that these third-party debates were nationally televised, which I seriously doubt):
=============================== NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org =============================== For release: September 27, 2004 =============================== For additional information: George Getz, Communications Director (202) 333-0008 ================================ Libertarian, Green candidates to debate immediately before Bush-Kerry event WASHINGTON -- The Libertarian and Green candidates for president will hold a debate on Thursday featuring something the Bush-Kerry debate will lack: a small-government perspective. "If you like gigantic government spending, towering deficits and the festering war in Iraq, tune in to the Bush-Kerry debate," said Fred Collins, campaign manager for Libertarian Michael Badnarik. "But if you want to hear an all-American argument in favor of limited government, shrinking the deficit and ending the war in Iraq, the third-party debate is for you." Badnarik and Green candidate David Cobb will face off on Thursday at 5 pm in Miami, just hours before the first Bush-Kerry debate. The third- party event will be held at the Holiday Inn Ballroom, 1350 South Dixie Highway in Coral Gables, across the street from the Bush-Kerry event, which begins at 9pm. Immediately after the Bush-Kerry debate, Badnarik and Cobb will offer rebuttals to the older parties' answers. They will also take unscripted questions from the audience and from correspondents for Pacifica Radio Network, which will carry the event live. The most noteworthy aspect to the three upcoming Bush-Kerry debates is something Americans won't hear, Collins predicted: An argument in favor of smaller government. "When asked about health care, Bush may brag about how he created the largest expansion of socialized medicine in history with his prescription drug plan," Collins said. "When the issue of education arises, expect him to reminisce about how he collaborated with Sen. Teddy Kennedy to write the most bloated federal education bill in history. "In response, Kerry will either quibble over the details or trot out his own plan to 'help' Americans by seizing more of their money. No real debate there." When it comes to foreign policy -- the topic of Thursday's debate - don't expect either politician to question the biggest, most destructive government program of all, CollinS said: war. "The war in Iraq -- which has claimed over 1,000 American lives and cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- is George Bush's favorite government program, and despite Kerry's last-minute backpedaling, the fact is that he voted for it," Collins said. "Both of these politicians have a record of aiding and abetting all government programs, foreign and domestic. And they're going to happily tell you more about it on Thursday." And that's why the debate between Badnarik and Cobb will be so refreshing, Collins said. "Michael Badnarik will present small-government, free-market solutions to problems with education, health care and the environment," Collins said. "He'll also explain why a foreign policy of neutrality and non- intervention will make America safer from war and terrorism." The Green Party candidate will advocate more government involvement in certain areas, while staunchly defending many civil liberties and opposing the war in Iraq, Collins said. "That means that Americans who want a robust debate over the size and power of government can get it on Thursday -- as long as they skip the Bush-Kerry snooze-a-thon and tune in to watch the Libertarians and Greens instead." The debate will be sponsored by two nonpartisan student organizations, the University of Miami's Council for Democracy and the Miami-Dade College Student Senate, and by the Maryland-based Center for Voting and Democracy. The center is chaired by John Anderson, the 1980 independent presidential candidate, who will present an opening statement prior to the debate.
I won't even mention that the LP has no chance with less than half a per cent, because I might pee in my pants from laughing so hard.
Big deal, the issues that kill the LP are the destructive behaviors on the fringe of society that they promote, such as drugs, prostitution, loan sharking, price gouging, etc. They also won't mention open borders, and how they'll let our enemies build up and invade before fighting them.
Guess who's in the HIGHEST echelon of the (R) party?
My answer, Republicans.
I am suprised that there are so many undecided voters in this election. They must be the ones watching the MSM.
.
Do you hold the patent rights on ignorance or have you just cornered the market?
BTTT!!!!!!!!
The Commission on Presidential debates, a private organization.
Can't see it in the Constitution....
The Constitution limits the power of the Federal government, not the rights of private parties to freely associate (or not associate).
The exclusionary practices of the Republican/Democrat cartel in this country denies the people any real choice. It is a clear and present danger to that duopoly that a third party could hold the balance of power in this country if they were not "drowned at birth".
Yeah, getting to 15% is too much like work.
"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee anyone access to a particular forum. Nice try.
No.
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?
Only if you're accepting federal matching funds. Which the Libertarians are not eligible for, anyway.
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.