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."
I think we can help with one of these things.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Can we get a Slashdot poll for this guy? I'm sure he'll hit at least 10%.
Broadcast yourself? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Broadcast yourself? (Score:5, Interesting)
ya, edit a video and insert yourself answering the questions, as if you are part of the debate. you'll have to somehow avoid the copyright trolls, but I think it could be fair use...
Re:Isn't this what Libertarians WANT? (Score:2, Interesting)
So how do tv stations work in your utopian libertarian pipe dream? Does the person with the most money just buy the most powerful transmitter to drown out everyone elses signal?
Libertarian Question (Score:2, Interesting)
I keep hearing "whoever initiates force is wrong" and the point of the government is to be a framework to resolve contract disputes, as well as step in after someone initiates force against someone else. Skipping the fact there is a large private industry around dispute resolution the Libertarians fail to address, I'm unclear who initiates force in a very large number of situations. I'll give one here, and hopefully you can explain it in a way that I can understand. Usually I get the answer that goes back to "the person owning the land you are standing on has rights, you have none at all" which conflicts with the "initiate force" rules.
A Black man, Bob, is walking down the street. He sees a cafe named "Joe's Cafe" with a big "open" sign in the window and on the door. Feeling like a bite and feeling invited in, he walks in. The sign on the podium when he walks in says "please seat yourself". He walks to a booth and sits down. Joe, the owner, walks up and informs him that his type is not served there, and he must leave. Bob says "I'm not leaving until I get a meal." Joe calls the police and requests he be arrested for trespass.
The Libertarian explanation is that force is initiated by Bob for not leaving when forced to by Joe. Logic indicates that Joe invited the public (including Bob) in, and throwing him out is the initiation of force. And the Libertarian stance always seems to come down to the owner of the land has rights, and nobody else on that land does. Though, when I word it that way, I get yelled at, but never corrected with anything that doesn't directly lead back to the same conclusion. Though one person did send me a link to a youtube video that explains that you can't have personal freedom without property, and it's the personal freedom that is the basis of property, but no explanation of why it works out that personal freedom on someone else's property is determined, in part, but the owner of that property. That circularly comes back to the freedom coming not from personal freedom, but from the property itself.
I personally think of myself as a libertarian, but I've never met a Libertarian who was a libertarian, though most get offended when I say that.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, that was your mistake. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are ample peer reviewed studies showing that doctors medical decisions are influenced by things as simple as free dug samples for their patients. "Just take the money" is a very bad idea.
(Here's one of those studies, for example: http://baywood.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,9,13;journal,49,167;linkingpublicationresults,1:300313,1 )
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ask Obama.
I still believe Obama actually wanted to fix a lot of things. I think he quickly found out a few reasons why he can't make any serious change... dark secret reasons. Yeah, I know "conspiracy theory -- ignore the nut bag." I didn't vote for Obama... I voted Libertarian. But the change in Obama was remarkable and I don't think it's because 'he's just crooked like the rest of them.' I think Kennedy was the last rebel from the backstage establishment and we know how that ended up.
There's still lots of hope though. The problem is this internet thing. The establishment pretty much controls the media and all the usual stuff. But this internet thing... no one has figured out how to control it yet and it's too late to try to take it away. (Seriously, if they were forward thinking enough, they would have created an internet competitor that was 'fun, addicting and *SAFE(tm)* for public use' long ago... but now it's kind of too late. Only Steve Jobs could have pulled off a stunt like that and he's gone.
This internet thing... it may free the people yet.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, that was your mistake. (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the State of Massachusetts [census.gov] (warning: PDF), 260,618 people voted in the Congressional race in the 6th District in 2010.
He says he's polling at 7 percent support in that district; let's take him at his word. That means to estimate his base of support we can multiply 7 percent by 260,618, which yields 18,243.
So what would it take to raise $50,000? If he limited himself to raising money strictly from that 7 percent -- who are presumably his base -- he'd only need them to give $2.75 each to hit that mark. Two dollars and seventy-five cents. If he raised his ask to $10 -- still a small ask in the world of political contributions -- he'd have $182,000. That's not a huge amount of money -- the current incumbent spent $2 million in the 2010 cycle -- but it can buy an awful lot of mailers, yard signs, campaign t-shirts, and other tools to get your name and message out. No corporate contributions required.
Look, I'm as big an advocate for getting money out of politics as you're likely to find, but this is simply not a case of being required to raise Big Money in order to play. You don't have to raise Big Money, you just have to raise some money, because without a little money you can't afford the most basic tools a campaign needs to win. There's nothing un-democratic about giving your supporters yard signs. If you can't rouse yourself to gather the resources needed to do even that, it shouldn't come as a shock when people start assuming you're not a serious candidate.
Re:And your point is? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes? Notice how you do not see him arguing for a law that ABC should be forced to televise him? Libertarianism is about not forcing people to do things. Critizing how things are done, however, is perfectly cromulent with being a libertarian.