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."
And your point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not asking a question, not suggesting to act.
So what is it, just a story to tell?
Get someone else to report this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say, f*ck the first two! Or, do you have a very strong preference between R and D?
Paul B.
P.S. I'll wait a little bit more until changing my .signature...
Business owns government. Government owns business (Score:4, Insightful)
These socio-economic forces work hand in hand with the same agenda. Sadly the American public thinks that there are really two controlling parties and business is on the outside of this circle of power except to write checks. The truth is that they're all one and the same.
Well, that was your mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
You should have accepted those donations. That doesn't means you have to listen to whoever is giving you money. In fact, if I was you, I'd take their check, and then do the exact opposite of whatever they are asking for.
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Too little information here.
What are the criteria for being included in these independent polls? Does one normally request inclusion?
Have you asked ABC about these requirements?
Isn't this what Libertarians WANT? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, the ABC affiliate doesn't even NEED a reason to exclude you, right? It's their station. You want to be on TV, buy your own affiliate. Right? Isn't that the "free market" at work? Are you saying they should be FORCED to let you into the debate?
Libertarians are nothing but Republicans that are upset they aren't rich/powerful enough to fuck people in the ass. They want it to be easier to get into the "Fuck you, I've got mine" club.
A couple problems (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a couple problems with your story
1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that.
2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it.
3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this
Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ABC's decision. As a Libertarian surely you wouldn't want to interfere with the choice that a private company made.
With a 0% chance of winning, basically you would be wasting people's time. Similarly, Jill Stein isn't a part of the presidential debate.
Two Party System (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. It's a two party system, and the game is rigged to keep it that way.
How many parties were represented in the recent president/vice-president debates?
Re:Well, that was your mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if he did, the debates would have found some other reason to exclude him. This isn't actually about money at all, or, at least, his campaign money.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A couple problems (Score:2, Insightful)
1. You are correct
2. Even more correct.
3. Because we have a cadre of resident ayn rand nutters. They love anything that means they get to feel superior and blaming their problems on others. They hate being responsible for anything, even more so another human being. They like to talk about personal responsibility, but have no real interest in it. They will forgo insurance and rip me and you off by getting free care at the ER. They talk about how being forced to get car insurance is a moral outrage, but would still drive with no way to cover any costs incurred in an accident.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ABC's decision. As a Libertarian surely you wouldn't want to interfere with the choice that a private company made.
Ahh, yes, that old trotted out stupid fallacy. If you don't want a government to interfere in a decision, that must mean you think every decision made by a corporate entity should be met with a tub full of KY-jelly and a re-enactment of the scene from goatse.
For your information, it is possible to object to a decision, or even something someone said, without asking a government to back up your objection with violence. It's even possible to arrange a boycott, or a protest outside a studio, or any number of other private or popular actions in protest of a decision you don't like, yet none of those require the invocation of coercive force.
Not that I'm really much of a liberatarian in many ways. But this stupidity always really irritates me.
Re:ABC is a private business? (Score:5, Insightful)
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
As a libertarian he would not support government intervention (though laws, FCC mandates, etc) in these debates, but as far I can see that is not what he is asking for.
Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?
He doesnt hate corporations (atleast thats my opinion of what he believes in). He hates corporate money in politics. There is a difference between the two.
Re:Isn't this what Libertarians WANT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well fuck... you're wrong. Libertarians are not republicans. Libertarians just have some ideas that are more congruent with the republican party than the democratic party. On many issues libertarians are much more liberal than Democrats will ever be. Gay marriage for example... Libertarians don't even think marriage should be something the government has anything to do with. Mary a goat for all they care. That's between you and your religion.
Then you get into this nonsense about the station should have free speech. Sure, they should. But so does this fellow. They can exclude him from the debate, and then he has the right to make a big stink about it and make them look like shills for the 2 major parties, which in fact, they are. It's not like he's suing them. And even if he were to... there's no 100% right way to be a libertarian. He can have his own views, and be as Libertarian as he wants to be. Just because you're libertarian doesn't mean you want to shut down public schools and start selling missile launchers at the local walmart tomorrow. There's plenty of middle ground.
Climb out of our political parties sand trap and start think for yourself for a change.
Re:ABC is a private business? (Score:3, Insightful)
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?
Unless there is something else here, this sounds a bit petulant.
Creating legislation forcing ABC to permit his participation in the debate would be against Libertarian principals. Applying public pressure to revise their policy is not. I don't think you really understand Libertarian principals at all.
Re:Well Boo hoo.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Please go cry some where else. Requirements are there to be met, and you're not winning over any friends by crying corporate greed every time you don't get your way.
Wow way to be a total dick. Someone should kick you squarely in the balls...
Re:A couple problems (Score:4, Insightful)
People with means are apparantly clueless about what the average household revenue and costs are just to stay afloat.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Uh, he's on the ballot. That kind of makes it not the voting system's fault.
Re:Well, that was your mistake. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't say anything about who has to make the contributions. By the sound of things it could be people from his neighborhood. It doesn't have to be Halliburton.
And really, I'd bet it's more of a "If you don't have $50k, you don't actually have a serious campaign" type of requirement, in their opinion. I don't think it's a conspiracy to make sure you have corporate overlords, it's to make sure they don't have 500 whackjobs on stage preaching about all manner of insanity.
Re:Huh (Score:2, Insightful)
Libertarians are only against interference that doesn't work in their favor.
Re:ABC is a private business? (Score:2, Insightful)
He doesnt hate corporations (atleast thats my opinion of what he believes in). He hates corporate money in politics. There is a difference between the two.
Huh? How can you be a libertarian and be against corporate money in politics? I mean the Citizens United decision is almost exactly a page out of libertarian philosophy, a corporation is a collection of people who have the right to assemble their money and use it to buy advertising (aka speech) in the free market. Anything blocking corporate donations would require the force of law aka government interference which is surely something libertarians are against.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. The differences between our two parties are so narrow, that it's a waste of time having a debate between them. The debates don't matter, hell the election itself doesn't even matter. Crony capitalists will win and civil libertarians will lose.
Does a third party candidate have a chance to win? No, but he will raise important issues, and that's what really matters.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The voting system has more features than who appears on a ballot. Appearing on a ballot doesn't overcome the spoiler effect: less established parties are recursively seen as not viable and then can't establish viability. It's a predictable effect of "first past the post" voting systems.
Re:And your point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
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. ABC is a corporation, privately owned. If ABC doesn't want to include a candidate in their debate because they don't accept corporate donations that is their right and I support ABC in this right due to the inherent dramatic irony. if he wants ABC to treat him fairly he should get a better political ideology.
Re:Well, that was your mistake. (Score:4, Insightful)
You should have accepted those donations.
You're presuming he was offered any.
A "strong candidate" would be able to raise $50k from private citizens. His immediate blaming of his lack of funds on his stance against corporate donations means either he 1) had no plan in place for soliciting donations from ordinary people who want him to win or 2) those people don't exist.
I'm not about to assume he had corporations beating down his door to throw money at him, and he spent so much time standing up for his principles he forgot all about the rest of running a campaign.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama: I want to close Gitmo, and get the prisoners tried in a civilian court.
CIA Director: Yeah... look, that's not going to happen. We've a few skeletons in the closet there. If you did that, it'd be embarassing when they got out. I'm afraid that even if you ordered it, we'd have to stall for months. It's just reflect badly on you.
Democratic congressmen: A nice idea, but the republicans would tear us up on national security if we supported that. We've got elections in two years. Sorry, but we'd have to vote against any bill to do so.
Obama: Oh.
Re:Isn't this what Libertarians WANT? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats: regulate business, don't regulate people's personal lives
Weed comes under "personal lives" most of the time.
Re:Two Party System (Score:4, Insightful)
The current rules for the Presidential debates came about as a response to Perot's success. You have do even better than he did to get your foot in the door. Even if someone managed it, they could just as easily up the requirements again...
As we say around these parts... good luck with that.
Re:And your point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, Joe Q. Public does not care. Slashdot? Reddit? They'd be lucky to know about those sites, even if their friends send them links constantly.
No, the only way to "blow it up" is to get your voice out there in the mainstream media. Write an op-ed in the papers. Possibly buy some advertising. Get the word out there that you exist.
On the day of the debate - run your own commentary - in real time, as the debate goes on. If you've done it right, people will be bringing your commentary up (especially said mainstream media) as well.
Trying to get that ABC affiliate to cave? Remember - never mess with the ones who own the press.because they'll always have the final say. You might get invited to the debate, but everytime you speak, they may have "technical" troubles or cut to advertising when it's your turn. Or just make it look like you're a wacko in the runup ads for the debate.
Or even worse, invite other fringe parties to your podium, calling it the "fringe party podium" during the debate - in the name of fairness, it's everyone who couldn't (note the word I used) pay for the position (even though it's because you refused the money).
He's on the ballot - should be enough (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure there are not 500 whackjobs on the ballot. This criteria along should get someone in the debate until the number of people on the ballot really does make that impractical. There is no excuse for the media not to include a local candidate for representative that is on the ballot. No reason other than blatant partisanship.
Get non-corporate donations (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this what Libertarians WANT? (Score:4, Insightful)
>. Libertarians don't even think marriage should be something the government has anything to do with.
It's this idea and others that make the Libertarians look like loonies.
Marriage has been, and is always, a public statement of contract. It is basically civil in nature. Whatever religiosity that is thrown around it is mere window dressing. With this idea that the government should not be involved in validating marriages, you alienate *both* the religious nutjobs, and people like me who think one of the functions of government is to make things like contracts enforceable.
For glub's sake.
--
BMO
Re:And your point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically not posting as anon, and dumping my mods on this topic because I'm not afraid of people knowing my opinion here. More government subsidies, spending, and gross overreaching policies haven't made things better... perhaps those that founded our country on the premise of a limited federal government were right, and we should move towards that goal once again.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And your point is? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a libertarian. Been registered libertarian for most of the last 20 years. Have a Gary Johnson bumper sticker on my car right now.
Nevertheless, my reaction is the same. What is the point of this? Why would anyone care?
Neither of the following facts should be a surprise: (1) TV is a passive medium of communication designed for the lowest common denominator. (2) The US has a two-party system designed to lock out third parties.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Under the current rules, third parties can never win or achieve anything in the US.
What you yanks need is electoral form, including:
1. Compulsory voting. It tends to suppress the loony extremes (of all sides) and makes politicians start pandering to the politically apathetic majority rather than extremist nut-cases. If you ever take the time to look at the american political system from the outside you'll realise what an amazingly good thing this would be. Your politicians are scary...they're completely insane. It's terrifying that these lunatics could be elected to positions of power in the world's one remaining superpower....it's even more terrifying that these people could have that power at a time when the america empire is collapsing - your influence and global political relevance are dwindling.
I know many of you yanks think compulsory voting is immoral or something, that if someone's apathetic then they don't deserve the vote....but a) being politically apathetic means they just want to be left alone, they're not volunteering to be shat on, and b) they're most likely apathetic because (under the current system) it makes no difference whether they vote or not.
2. Some form of preferential voting so that voting for third-party or independent candidates is not a complete waste of a vote....You can vote for your favoured third-party candidate knowing that if he/she doesn't win, you vote will pass to your 2nd choice (and then to your third then fourth, etc choices).
The Condorcet method [wikipedia.org] is good but probably beyond what the average vote can understand, Alternative Ballot [wikipedia.org] is also good and easy enough for the average voter to understand.
3. State-level reform of your electoral college system - specifically eliminate winner-takes-all as an option. if 51% of the voters in a state prefer candidate A as president then that candidate should get 51% of that state's presidential votes, not 100%.
4. Paper ballots.
5. Make it harder (if not impossible) to disenfranchise people from their vote. Dropping people from electoral rolls should only be done *individually* never in bulk, with hand-signed (not automated) notification from the State's top electoral official at least six months before it affects a person's voting rights (if there's an election before then, they're still entitled to vote). Notification must include the cause, and legal causes must be strictly limited. *ANY* objection by the individual should immediately re-instate their voting rights until and unless the state can show cause in court why that individual should be disenfranchised.
6. Even felons should have voting rights, even while serving their sentences - but certainly once they've done their time. This is especially important when you consider that many felonies are victimless crimes like drug use....if a law is wrong then those convicted of it need to be able to vote to get that law changed.
You also need massive campaign finance reform (in short: ban all campaign contributions above, say $50 per person per year. complete ban on contributions from non-natural persons - corporations, lobby groups, religious organisations, etc).
Finally, you've got thousands of nukes. You can afford to drop a few on FOX news' HQ. Try it, you'll be glad you did.
Re:And your point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Once the real crisis hits it would be wonderful if we could get back to what the US was originally, a series of self governing states with a federal government whose main purpose was national defense.I want to live in a US where people care more about who their Governor is than who is President.
The whole point of the Federal system was to copy what made Western Europe rise to prominence, decentralized power. No leader could become too aggressive in taxes or rules because people and their money would simply leave. We saw this during the Jim Crow South. As bad as that was for blacks, it is a perfect example of how the system was supposed to work. Yes the southern states enacted stupidly racist legislation and the states paid for it. What young person in 1950 would look in the mirror and say to themselves, "I'm going to go make my fortune in Alabama." NOBODY.
About 6.5 million blacks between 1910 and 1970 simply moved from the Jim Crow South to states without those laws.Those that left tended to be the most motivated, hardest working, and most talented. Businesses did not want to move or operate in the South because maintaining two separate facilities for whites and blacks is expensive. As a result of their stupid actions the South became an economic backwater.
The vital part of this equation was the easy of movement between jurisdictions, both by the jurisdictions being small and movement between them being free. For a practical example,for people reading this to consider, imagine what it would take you to move two states away from where you are now. now imagine what it would take you to move two countries away from where you are now. The easier it is to move, the sooner the government will be punished for its stupid policies. First the money leaves, then the people leave.
Very few people have a positive view of Washington DC, the only reason anyone listens to what any of them say is because they hand out money. Once the printing press no longer works it's gonna get mighty interesting. They won't be able to use the military since, for starters, the military industrial complex has resulted in our military having such overpriced and under performing equipment that anything that actually does work will soon be out of service due to cost and logistics, leaving the DC forces with little more than M113s and C130s, much like what we had in Iraq, except with far less air support.
Second, you're going to have a portion desert and go fight for the state or local militias, whatever happens to pop up, and take as much heavy hardware as they can. How many actually do this is a wild card, but if the currency collapses and the infantry are basically working for food, expect to see fragging incidents begin at the very least.
Third, our military is so effective because everyone can trust everyone to do their job. In such a domestic crisis we will see that go out the window, in Vietnam, sabotage by conscripts was commonplace. Sabotage will be at the back of every ones mind and everyone will be watching their back.
Hopefully it will be a mostly peaceful transition back to the states asserting their sovereignty, trying different things out, copying what works and abandoning what doesn't. While people are free to move to the jurisdictions they find most attractive. Hope for the best,prepare for the worst.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting $50,000 in contributions may not show that lots of people support you, but not being able to get $50,000 in contributions is a pretty good sign that no-one supports you, for the reasons above.
The submitter says he's polling 7%; he's not, he's polling 7% in a poll of 401 people with a stated error margin almost as big as that 7%. The fact that he can't raise $50,000 suggests that he's probably close to the bottom of that error bound.