Libertarian Candidate Excluded From Debate For Refusing Corporate Donations 627
fishdan writes "I'm a long time Slashdot member with excellent karma. I am also the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Congress in the Massachusetts 6th District. I am on the ballot. I polled 7% in the only poll that included me, which was taken six weeks ago, before I had done any advertising, been in any debates or been on television. In the most recent debate, the general consensus was that I moved a very partisan crowd in my favor. In the two days since that debate, donations and page views are up significantly. Yesterday I received a stunning email from the local ABC affiliate telling me they were going to exclude me from their televised debate because I did not have $50,000 in campaign contributions, even though during my entire campaign I have pointedly and publicly refused corporate donations. They cited several other trumped up reasons, including polling at 10%, but there has not been a poll that included me since the one six weeks ago — and I meet their other requirements."
Moved a partisan crowd? (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing I see to support your claim that you "moved a very partisan crowd in my favor" is a single sentence:
Fishman, perhaps sensing that many in the room were swayed, told voters to consider him, despite his long odds.
That said I wish you luck, it sounds like the other two candidates are both complete jerks: "Don't vote for him because he's a REPUBLICAN"..."Oh yea? Well don't vote for him because he's a DEMOCRAT". Yup, that's how I evaluate a candidate.
Plus this is completely off topic and doesn't belong on slashdot in the first place.
Bad headline (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And your point is? (Score:5, Informative)
So what is it, just a story to tell?
The answer is on his site:
#2 Can we blow this up? Slashdot. Reddit. Anywhere you post political talk -- they need to see this. I'm not a fringe candidate. Any research at all reveals I am a calm and rational proponent of the ideas of liberty. Video Bloggers? What do you think?
It seems the theory is, "Make a big enough stink, this ABC affiliate will cave." It doesn't look like there's been any back-and-forth with ABC on this, though. And she did include her name and email address. And their phone number is right on their website.
Asking them about it seems like the first, and most appropriate course of action. Don't just assume it's a conspiracy and grab the pitchforks. Just a thought.
Re:And your point is? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't this what Libertarians WANT? (Score:5, Informative)
Trying to paint Libertarians as Anarchists doesn't make you right. In fact it makes you that much more wrong.
Re:And your point is? (Score:5, Informative)
This guy is a libertarian, why is he whining? He's fighting for the right for people & organizations to do whatever they want regardless of fairness, ethics, or consequence.
citation needed.
Libertarians believe that people have a right to make an informed decision that suits best their needs. Suppression of information is not libertarian, even the idea of the free market itself requires informed players.
Re:Isn't this what Libertarians WANT? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it is their station. However the airways are owned by the commons and are licensed to them by the public. The license mandates that the stations provide equal access to political candidates.
From the Communications Act:
"If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any political office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."
There is nothing anti-libertarian about insisting they live up to their contractual obligations.
Re:And your point is? (Score:4, Informative)
Mod parent insightful.
As I am sure /. is unaware, the Green Party candidate for the Presidency this year is Jill Stein. Ten years ago she debated Mitt Romney [c-spanvideo.org] and a Libertarian candidate for the gubernatorial race. This year neither she nor Mr. Johnson of the Libertarian Party have been able to debate Mitt. If this is how the national party representatives are treated, is it surprising that a House candidate is also given short shrift?
A sensible political system might indeed include mandatory airtime or debate privileges. As the parent poster has stated, this would require government action. Are you in favor of such a system? How do you justify telling a private company what to do? Why aren't you demanding this same privilege for your party at the national level -- did I miss that slashdot article?
P.S. : If any libertarians want to take up the gage, I have some general comment on your philosophy here. [slashdot.org]
Re:Why? (Score:1, Informative)
Amazing. Where I come from (Norway), excluding a politician with 15% support would be unthinkable. We regularly include people from parties with 2-4% support in television debates here. And the amount of dontations is certainly not an issue - it isn't common to donate to political parties at all, and shouldn't be either. Otherwise, it will be easier to represent the rich than the poor, and democracy is supposed to be one person - one vote, not one dollar, one vote.
I definitely think it is a problem that the original poster is being excluded for lack of donations. Not only shouldn't he need any, he also says he has been actively refusing to accept donations, so how does him not having any give any indication of his popularity? While I strongly disagree with libertarianism, I think it is very respectable of him not to play into the corrupt donation- and advertisement-heavy campaign system in the USA.
And this Fishman guy locks ME out of ... (Score:4, Informative)
,,, his web site commentary just because I don't want to give out my identity to some third party web site?