You still have responded as to how your previous claim of...
"The Libertarians are not suing to be included. They are suing to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a PRIVATE event!"
with the first line from the article:
"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. "
Your version is even different from the official bednarik web site:
“If all of the candidates were invited, it might be portrayed as an educational program,” says David Euchner, the Tucson attorney pressing the Libertarians’ case. “When legitimate candidates whose names will appear on the Arizona ballot are excluded, the only word for it is ‘campaign commercial.’”
So he's not against taxpayer money being used for the debate - only if it's held without him.
I hadn't seen your post yet.... Here is my reply:
FIRST - and this is important - I am not a lawyer. I do not represent the LP, the AZLP, or any other part of the party at present time. Technically, I am a small "l" libertarian at the present time although I was active in the party a few years back. The following is my personal understanding of the case upon perusing the court documents and reading press releases, and media accounts of the events.
I believe your misunderstanding is where the media comes to play in all of this. The reporter is focusing on one aspect of the case. Unfortunately, it is a mere part and not the part of legal merit. The full charge against the university is such:
It is a misappropriation of taxpayer dollars to fund an event in which there are exclusionary practices. In other words, taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund events in which private individuals or organizations could be deemed to profit and from which other parties are excluded.
The university's claim is that it is merely host to an event that will be paid for by private donations. The AZLP contends that taxpayer dollars are being used for this event.
Perhaps I didn't speak clearly in that post you cited either...
I said, "The Libertarians are not suing to be included. They are suing to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a PRIVATE event!"
Perhaps, I should have stated it as follows, "The Libertarians are not suing to be included. They are suing to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to fund _what_ should_be_ a private event. Furthermore, they are suing for the right of inclusion if it is deemed that it is being funded with taxpayer dollars and therefore is a public event."
In any case, I don't want to unintentionally mislead anyone Republican, Libertarian or otherwise on the exact nature of the case so...
***I will post a better explanation of the case itself in a few minutes taken from a more "expert" source, along with links to the actual court documents.***