Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Media Politics Your Rights Online

Libertarian Candidate Excluded From Debate For Refusing Corporate Donations 627

Posted by Soulskill
from the have-you-tried-turning-it-off-and-then-on-again dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Libertarian Candidate Excluded From Debate For Refusing Corporate Donations

Comments Filter:
  • And your point is? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kav2k (1545689) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:13PM (#41634947)

    Not asking a question, not suggesting to act.
    So what is it, just a story to tell?

    • by SomePgmr (2021234) on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:12PM (#41635907) Homepage

      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.

      • by fishdan (569872) on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:17PM (#41636003) Homepage Journal
        I wrote back and they replied insisting that the $50k was a firm number. I had forgotten too that they had approached me about buying advertizing from them several weeks ago and I rejected them because although Boston is the major DMA, my campaign can't afford to pay to broadcast to 5million who are not in my district.
      • by tlhIngan (30335) <[ten.frow] [ta] [todhsals]> on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:48PM (#41636501)

        #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.

        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).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by Vaphell (1489021) on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:37PM (#41636355)

        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.

      • by Tenebrousedge (1226584) <tenebrousedge AT gmail DOT com> on Friday October 12, 2012 @05:04PM (#41636761)

        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: (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.

        • Critizing how things are done, however, is perfectly cromulent with being a libertarian.

          Oh come on. The mere act of criticizing something does not imply any philosophical views or ideals. (Well, unless your ideology specifies that nothing should ever be criticized. But that's not the case here.)

          No, it's the reasoning and content of the criticism, viewed with the ideology of the person making that criticism, that determine if that person's criticism is valid or not. The reasoning behind this criticism is inconsistent with libertarian ideology, thus it's invalid.

      • by aztracker1 (702135) on Friday October 12, 2012 @06:23PM (#41637659) Homepage
        Why is it that people assume that just because you are libertarian, that there should be no rules at all enforced by the government? Or is this typical group think? I mean, Democrats tend to buddy up to corporate interests as much as Republicans. Just look at all the corporate welfare in this country from both parties. At least libertarians aren't going to afford special protections to corporations... for that matter, it's more likely that corporate protections would be limited in favor of increased competition.

        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.
      • I'm not sure you understand libertarians at all. You seem to have confused them with anarchists...

    • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:23PM (#41636107) Journal

      Why did this guy get marked troll? If you believe voting is any more real than pro wrestling I have some magic beans you might be interested in. Want proof? As much as I think the guy is snooker loopy on a lot of thing Alex Jones has the proof in video on his website. When the Ron Paul supporters asked to be heard according to the RNCs own rules they held a vote to change those rules and someone managed to get their cell camera to where you can see the teleprompter and the teleprompter had the results of the vote before the vote had been cast thus showing the whole process fake.

      The "choices" you WILL get, no matter what you do, will be corporate approved shill A or B, that's it. Go to YouTube and watch the videos of those that actually counted the ballots in CN and NH where they say "The numbers for our district and what the RNC claimed are not even close" as Mittens was doing poorly in those states so they just gave him magical free votes. Remember if you control the primary outcome then it doesn't matter what happens in the general election, since both sides are "your guy" so its heads you win tails they lose. They control the primary process, they control the debates, they make sure only shills get the two slots so who gives a shit which shill gets it? A shill is a shill is a shill and as long as he'll cash the checks and give them the laws the corps don't give a rat's ass.

      In the end I urge everyone to watch this video about voting [youtube.com] as while i don't agree with the libertarians on much, being more of a socialist myself, i have to agree with this libertarian on this issue, its pointless. you can't change a corrupt institution by using the rules set forth by that corrupt institution, because as with Paul they'll just change the rules and there is nothing you can do about it.

      Personally I say grab every damned dime you can and wait for the collapse, which now is pretty much inevitable. Here is another video [youtube.com] by the same guy where he simply gives you the numbers and lets you decide. Look at the hockey stick chart in the middle of the video, in 1929 when the stock market collapsed we had 125% of GDP in the market and that took us to 1953 to fully recover to pre crash levels. How much do we have in now? Over 400% of GDP and rising which means when this bubble pops it'll make 1929 look like a minor glitch.

      You have one party that is tax slightly and spend heavily, another that is give tax breaks and spend MORE heavily, nothing you can say or do will change the direction we are heading, a collapse is inevitable. Grab what you can, take care of your own, its all you can really do. On the bright side when the whole thing collapses hopefully we can start over and have a true democracy instead of the corporate sham we've had for half a century. Ike warned us the MIC would be just the start and he was right, now the corps own the whole show and its pro wrestling to entertain the public and keep their minds off what is really happening.

      Sorry for the length but this is a subject I feel strongly about and I'll just end with the wisdom of George Carlin "Know why they call it The American Dream? Because you have to be asleep to believe in it".

    • by bcrowell (177657) on Friday October 12, 2012 @08:49PM (#41638637) Homepage

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:15PM (#41634963)

    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.

  • by AwesomeMcgee (2437070) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:16PM (#41634979)
    I'm not sure if I should be terrified or elated.

    One things for sure, he's got my vote just to see how a slashdotter's trolling skills stand up in the big leagues.
  • by tekrat (242117) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:17PM (#41635003) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by Applekid (993327) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:25PM (#41635101)

      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.

      • You're right, it's not about money. It's about him demonstrating that he has supporters other than the voices in his head. If you don't have those, you shouldn't expect to be able to take time away from candidates who do.
      • by chrismcb (983081)
        The world isn't as cynical as everyone makes it out to be. Whoever is organizing the debate wants to have serious candidates. They came up with a list of what qualifies a serious candidate. And this guy didn't make the list. It is possible that they would have come up with another excuse, but until it happens...you know innocent until proven guilty.
    • by Ichijo (607641) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:48PM (#41635463) Homepage Journal

      In fact, if I was you, I'd take their check, and then do the exact opposite of whatever they are asking for.

      Unless they knew you were going to do the opposite of what they ask for, in which case they would ask the opposite of what they want you to do. "So I clearly can not choose the wine in front of me."

    • by SomePgmr (2021234) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:48PM (#41635475) Homepage

      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.

      • by gr8_phk (621180) on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:49PM (#41636523)

        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.

        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.

    • by gruber76 (79421) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:52PM (#41635553) Homepage

      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 )

    • by Hatta (162192)

      I suspect that a significant proportion of his 7% support would not support him if he had accepted corporate donations.

      • Completely agreed. Why would you go back on your morality for anything really....oh wait..... that's what the people in the debate do...and how they got there......is it any less corrupt across the pond? I am seriously debating on moving out of this country.

      • by jalefkowit (101585) <jason@NOSPam.jasonlefkowitz.net> on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:50PM (#41636549) Homepage

        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.

        • by Hatta (162192)

          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.

          Why isn't being on the ballot sufficient?

          • by Chuckstar (799005)

            Because you only need 2,000 signatures to get on the ballot. Get a few volunteers to stand around a local shopping mall and you can get that in a weekend or two. ABC has no interest in being required to put anyone on TV who has two friends and a couple free weekends. It would tend to undermine the usefulness of the debate to the viewer, anyway. I know I have no interest in hearing from a bunch of fringe candidates who can't possibly win. That's why they generally have some kind of cutoff of "serious can

    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:20PM (#41636045) Homepage

      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.

  • Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SomePgmr (2021234) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:19PM (#41635017) Homepage

    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?

  • by realmolo (574068) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:19PM (#41635019)

    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.

    • by tekrat (242117) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:25PM (#41635095) Homepage Journal

      Don't be silly. According to Romney, you can borrow money from your parents. Or roll down the window on a airplane, I forget which.

    • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:38PM (#41635309)
      You see, you're playing the same game the 2 party system wants you to. You lump everything into "republican" or "democrat" and then, once you've placed a person, idea or proposal into it's basked you pick the most extreme ideas in that party and make a strait line from A to B. He's libertarian, which is the same as republican, which is conservative... Nazis... HE WANTS TO KILL THE JEWS!!!!

      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.
      • 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.

        Let's not get too carried away now; I think most Libertarians would still care about all parties being capable of consent. So maybe group marriage would be OK, but marrying animals and children not so much.

      • by bmo (77928) on Friday October 12, 2012 @05:23PM (#41637003)

        >. 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

    • by Maudib (223520) on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:42PM (#41636425)

      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.

    • You don't think thats a bit of a generalization? Also there are degree's of Libertarians. I consider myself one, but think Regulations are absolutely vital, and we have a duty as a country to provide things like foodstamps. and from a fiscal stand point a government run healthcare is just common sense.
  • A couple problems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MyLongNickName (822545) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:19PM (#41635023) Journal

    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

    • by AwesomeMcgee (2437070) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:44PM (#41635419)
      I'm sorry but; 50g's is a lot of money. Missionaries collecting that just from family and friends? I take it you live in Manhattan? I come from a fairly intelligent professional family, but none of my family members *own* a home more less have thousands of dollars burning holes in their pockets. Any extra cash laying around from my family and friends is in their rainy day fund because they need one or being slowly saved to get something a little pleasant, think 50 dollars a month until they can afford a nice big screen tv after a full year. Not the kind of money that would ever amount to 50 grand.

      People with means are apparantly clueless about what the average household revenue and costs are just to stay afloat.
  • Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kamapuaa (555446) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:20PM (#41635025) Homepage

    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.

    • by jdastrup (1075795)
      I agree with your first statement about not interfering with the private company's choice. But, I disagree about wasting people's time. I would bet that many people, especially conservatives that only vote Republican because that's what they think conservatives are supposed to do, would be surprised and possibly learn that there are other options besides the Republicans. In some ways, that's what the Tea Party was all about, unfortunately it had no real leadership.
    • Re:Huh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Omnifarious (11933) * <eric-slash@omnifar i o u s.org> on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:31PM (#41635187) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by danlip (737336) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:20PM (#41635027)

    You shouldn't need corporate donations to reach the $50,000 mark. You could do it with $5000 people donating $10 each. That's 0.076% of the Massachusetts population. I think it is a fairly reasonable concept that if you can't do that you are not a serious candidate.

    • by Talderas (1212466)

      Hmmm.... where can I get some $5000 people. I would like to breed them for $5000 babies to sell.

  • Broadcast yourself? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by K. S. Kyosuke (729550) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:22PM (#41635055)
    Make your own video. Post it on Youtube. Make it viral.
  • Two Party System (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shagg (99693) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:22PM (#41635059)

    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?

    • 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?

      And the only time I've ever heard of a third-party candidate being included in a Presidential debate was Ross Perot. And what did he have that got him there? A shitload of money.

  • by nimbius (983462) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:30PM (#41635147) Homepage

    you arent being kicked out for refusing corporate donations. you are being refused because you havent even raised 50K and are polling at less than 15%.
     
    hate to say it but if I were an ABC affiliate trying to configure the program schedule around the advertising revenue im supposed to be selling, id probably try to keep the forums brief and ensure key folks who pay me for ads get a seat. republicans and democrats will pay me for ad space, but they might not pay me much if i include 40 other no-name candidates willing to bother their candidates with actual debate.

    if you're a libertarian bitching about capitalism, you might not be running under the correct ticket.

    • by e3m4n (947977)

      libertarian and constitutionalists often cross-over with their goals and ideas. its clearly obvious that the two assholes we have fighting for the seat right now dont give two shits about civil liberties or the constitution. I couldnt stand the patriot act, I cant stand PIPA and SOPA, I dont like the arming of every federal office and I sure as hell dont like the extrajudicial assasination of a 16yr old boy who was the english voice of al queda without so much as a trial. And as much as I dislike the presi

  • by tomhath (637240) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:30PM (#41635157)

    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.

  • The media doesn't want to upset the applecart, especially by putting on one of those dirty 'libertarians'. Heck, even in this Slashdot article you have people erecting strawman arguments and then asking why you're upset.

    But really, what it is is that the media loves the advertising money from the candidates. It's in their best interests to promulgate the idea that advertising and money wins elections, because that money is spent on them. So they go out of their way to avoid providing free advertising to any candidate who hasn't paid them for enough paid advertising.

    And the two party system is a great source of the kind of fake controversy over irrelevant issues that is the bread and butter of mass media. So they don't really want that to go away either. Too much money tied up in keeping things just as they are.

  • by Time_Ngler (564671) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:42PM (#41635377)

    His 7% of the poll can be explained pretty easily. If I didn't know any of the candidates, and I saw "Fishman", I'd vote for him just on principle.

  • by thewiz (24994) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:45PM (#41635429)

    Here's an idea:
    1. Take the money from the companies
    2. Deposit it in a bank
    3. Take out money to donate (anonymously) to people and groups that are fighting against the companies that are trying to grease your hand
    4. Feel good about yourself and keep on sticking it to the companies

  • by myth24601 (893486) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:47PM (#41635439)

    They should pass a law that mandates that anyone who broadcasts a debate must include Libertarians.

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Friday October 12, 2012 @03:49PM (#41635483)
    I'm sure they'd love to report on this. Also local newspapers and radio.
  • by Pretzalzz (577309) on Friday October 12, 2012 @04:17PM (#41635997)

    For perspective of how low a bar $50,000 is, open secrets [opensecrets.org] has the FEC data for the race. Both of the top 2 candidates have raised over $1.4 million dollars as of 2 months ago, and have likely raised a bunch more since. Even excluding PAC/other money they have raised $866k/$1.22m.

  • ...the $50,000 come from "corporations". A thousand $50 contributions would suffice. Don't you take donations at all? Where do you get your funds?

  • by Skapare (16644) on Friday October 12, 2012 @07:37PM (#41638263) Homepage

    ,,, his web site commentary just because I don't want to give out my identity to some third party web site?

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay

Working...