http://time.com/3929644/presidential-debates-lawsuit/

June 21, 2015

Via Time

POLIT ICS DEBATES

Third-Party Advocates File Lawsuit Over Presidential Debates A coalition of advocates for third parties in presidential elections is filing a lawsuit Monday against barriers to entry in presidential debates.

Alleging that the Federal Election Commission and the Commission on Presidential Debates have fostered a duopoly in American politics that has made it impossible for a third-party candidate to win the White House, the suit seeks to upend a decades-old debate system, while striking a blow against the 150-year Democrat-Republican regime.

Organized by the group Level the Playing Field, which sprung out of the failed 2012 third party effort Americans Elect and backed by multi-millionaire financier Peter Ackerman, the lawsuit includes both the Green Party and Libertarian National Committee. It comes as the American public is more dissatisfied with the traditional party system than ever before, and the prospects for fixing it are especially dim.

Its the little rules that nobody can see that make all the difference, plaintiff Peter Ackerman told TIME in an interview, suggesting that the debate rule could be the unseen panacea.Watched by tens of millions of people, the debates are the largest media event of the political calendar, and offer candidates unrivaled opportunity to reach voters. Ackerman asserts that Americans Elect was unable to secure a candidate in 2012 because there was no credible pathway to participating in the debates, making victory on Election Day essentially impossible.

Critics of the effort scoff that the rules changes are a solution in search of a problem, with no third party candidate on the horizon, or worse: that it is an effort to pave the way for wealthy self-funding candidates to buy their way onto the debate stage.

CPD was founded by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1987 and has run every presidential debate since. Only Ross Perot has made the debate stage without being the nominee of either major party, and only during his first run in 1992. Rules in 2012 required that a debate-stage-aspirant be Constitutionally eligible to hold the presidency, have achieved ballot access sufficient to potentially win the needed 270 electoral votes, andcontroversiallyrequire that they poll at 15 percent in national surveys.

Level the Playing Field contends that the 15-percent threshold is too high, and that reducing it alone would not make it any easier for a third party to participate. It proposes a playoff six months before election to allow a third-party contender with the highest poll numbers or most public signatures collected to participate in the debates. Critics argue that the run-off would become a de-facto election, artificially boosting a also-ran on one or the other side of the aisle and weakening one credible candidate over the other.

Ackerman and the groups have filed complaints and rule-making requests with the FEC alleging that CPD, has conspired to keep out third-party candidates to preserve the influence of the two major parties. The lawsuit stems from the similarly-divided FECs refusal to take action on their requests. The lawsuit contends that by effectively limiting the field to Democrats and Republicans, both the CPD and FEC are not non-partisan, rather, bipartisan, potentially putting the debate group in violation of FEC rules. The FEC has set standards for debate sponsors, requiring them to be news organizations or non-profits that do not endorse, support, or oppose political candidates or political parties.

The FEC has had Plaintiffs administrative complaint for over nine months (284 days), and yet has taken no action on it even though [Federal Election Campaign Act] requires the agency to act within 120 days, the lawsuit states. The FEC has also effectively pocket-vetoed a separate, but related, petition for rulemaking requesting that it amend its debate regulation to prohibit the use of polling as the sole means of access to presidential debates. The FEC is apparently ignoring the petition for rulemaking even though it too was filed more than nine months ago; even though 1,251 independent individuals and organizations all but four of whom were unknown to Plaintiffs filed comments supporting a rulemaking; and even though the only commenter opposing the proposed rulemaking was the CPD itself.

# # # #

http://ballot-access.org/2014/12/18/level-the-playing-field-the-organization-that-is-working-for-better-presidential-debates-is-the-successor-of-americans-elect/

FEC - Re: Notice 2014-13, Rulemaking Petition: Candidate Debates http://www.shapiroarato.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/LPF-Comment-on-Petition-11.26.14.pdf http://sers.fec.gov/fosers/showpdf.htm?docid=306278

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/06/new-fec-rule-request-on-presidential-debates-noting-flaws-in-level-the-playing-field-proposal/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-group-calls-for-changes-in-presidential-debate-rules/2015/03/17/5816053c-ccb1-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html

http://www.gp.org/green-party-press-releases/details/4/797

April 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Green Party leaders expressed strong support for the "Our America Initiative" law suit against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The Green Party and Libertarian Party are among several plaintiffs in the suit.

http://www.fairdebates.com

https://www.freeandequal.org/

https://www.ouramericainitiative.com/

*

The reasons for third-party inclusion in the presidential debates are many

The legacy of third parties in the U.S. includes abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the eight-hour workday, workers' benefits, public schools, unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, child labor laws, direct election of senators, and programs like Social Security and Medicare. All of these were introduced by third parties and adopted later by one or both of the major parties. Scott McLarty

*

Since 1987, a private corporation created by and for the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has sponsored the US Presidential debates and implemented debate contracts. In order to shield the major party candidates from criticism, CPD has refused to release debate contract information to the public. In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement to take over the presidential debates from the nonpartisan League of Women Voters. Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the Commission on Presidential Debates. Every four years it implements private contracts jointly drafted by the Republican and Democratic nominees. Before the CPDs formation, the League of Women Voters served as a genuinely nonpartisan presidential debate sponsor from 1976 until 1984, ensuring the inclusion of popular independent candidates and prohibiting major party campaigns from manipulating debate formats. Historically, third party candidates have played critical roles in our democracy by introducing popular and groundbreaking issues that were eventually co-opted by major partiessuch as the abolition of slavery, womens right to vote, social security, child labor laws, public schools, the direct election of senators, paid vacation, unemployment compensation, and the formation of labor unions. With third-party candidates excluded from discourse, they cant break the bipartisan silence on issues where the major parties are at odds with most Americans

Third-Party Advocates File Lawsuit Over Presidential Debates