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.
LIKE: Getting feds out of the education indoctrination buisness(public schools)
and maybe stopping all federal grants to any college that indoctrinates socialist dogma..
or maybe even giving the ol' FCC some decent sharp dentures to police the public air waves.. instead of trashing 280 millions dollars a year(2004)... for WHAT... NOTHING...
Libertarians advocate PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Not government entitlements. Personal responsibility is something our two party system has seemed to forget.
They want to make all of our decisions for us including who gets to "participate" in the political process.
We wouldn't be fighting a war on terror because if the libertarian energy policy had been adopted 30 years ago imported oil would not be the focus of protectionary taxation. As I see it, neither the Democrats of Republicans have scored very high in solving a lot of national problems because they spend their time protecting their power base and appeasing contributors.
Perot could have won the 92 election but he was rattled by the intimidators and personal attack engineers who threatened his personal safety because he was a threat to their power base if his coalition had remained intact.
It is all about controlling the largest economy in the world and the power it represents. Not representing the people who have made our nation the old fashioned way.......... by working.
Libertarians are also lots closer to Ted Kosinski than Republicans IMO!
Or is the whole equality under the law thing lost on you?
I remember you said you didn't watch the nationally televised four-party debate with Mr. B, but did you watch the nationally televised debate between Mr. B and the Green Party candidate?
Make it an all day event. Jerry Lewis telethon style. Have debate run offs with call in voting. Final two survivors at the end of the day face each other in gladatorial combat.
Once everyone is dead or demoralized, the population can get on about their business knowing that anyone who actually would WANT the job of ruling over millions of people has been safely kept from doing so.
Nothing too major. Not like which has better hair or can pronounce words like nuclear and Ghengis.
you really need to do a little research before you post.
The CPD is a private organization. Not a government one
The debates themselves are funded by donations.
yes, correctly,no one can challenge their exclusion, anymore than you can challenge that augusta country club didn't offer you a membership. It's a private meeting. Check your constitution for futher details.
Air force one is funded by taxpayers,but the campaign repays it for use of the plane. It's been that way forever. It's afact of life - the president doesn't fly coach.
Yes, public funding kicks in for the candidates after their debate - it's called matching funds. But stretching to say this means they can't exclude anyone from the (PRIVATE) debate is like saying john kerry has to let george bush speak at every one of his rallies because kerry received public funds.
Sorry, you failed the logic test. Also the constituional law test. Goodbye.
Note to self: Sign off, your mind needs a break.
Caughts parts of it on CSPAN's webiste. Oddly, I didn't know it was going to be broadcast. I wonder why the media lets everyone know when Bush/Kerry will spend hours talking past each other, but completely fail to let anyone know when others are having actual debates.
"If the judge forces the debate commission to allow Bednarik and Nader and Peroutka into the debates, the commission will cancel the final debate." you said.
I say cluck cluck cluck chicken!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly what are they scared of?
I hope it IS cancelled. The 2 party debate process is a scripted facade for consumers of bs. I think the people should decide who gets in since it is US these candidates claim to represent. Backing out will only reinforce the lack of accountability of the two party power mongers.
If 3rd party candidates fall flat on their face.....there is no better place than in front of the tv cameras.
Flip floppers should not get all the glory!
Do you have a source for this info? Nothing turning up on Google. Search criteria "Commission for Presidential Debates funding".
Draw straws. One candidate outfitted in full armor with a short dagger - the other nude with a long sword.
I thought the Democrats were the party of the courts?
Every time there is something political they disagree with they run to a judge.
Now... if Condi runs against Ol' Crusty... Dr. Rice is a damn fine looking woman with boku brains to boot. Can I still say that without getting in trouble with some obscure organisation who hunt down men and torture them?
right on! This is a matter of inclusion, not exclusion from the process.
No. His organization fell apart amid bitter jealousy and infighting.
LOL! Figuring out answers off the top of one's head does tucker one out.
Probably because the LP never bothered to issue a press release.
As if I should care about your opinion? If I ever find myself in agreement with you, sinky or CJ, I KNOW I'm on the wrong side of the issue. Republicans in the higher echelons are far closer to Ted "No-pants" Kennedy than to Conservatives. Remember "No Child Left Behind?" Guess who's in the HIGHEST echelon of the (R) party?
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.