{"id":2914,"date":"2017-02-10T22:07:55","date_gmt":"2017-02-11T06:07:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/?p=2914"},"modified":"2017-02-10T22:15:48","modified_gmt":"2017-02-11T06:15:48","slug":"third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/","title":{"rendered":"Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics"},"content":{"rendered":"

From RealClearPolitics, one of many articles on the recent court order from the lawsuit against the FEC and the CPD…<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Except for 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been sued in every presidential cycle since it was formed in 1987. Those court challenges, usually centering on opening the process to more candidates, have never gotten anywhere \u2014 until now.<\/p>\n

Those frustrated with the two-party domination of America\u2019s election process finally have something to cheer about, thanks to a federal judge\u2019s ruling against the Federal Election Commission. Reformers hope this decision could result in the next presidential debate stage being more crowded \u2013 and more independent \u2013 than it has been since the 1990s.<\/p>\n

The pathway to get there, however, is not a straight one, and not all independent activists yearning to break the Democratic-Republican duopoly are certain that litigation is the best path.<\/p>\n

But thanks to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, the legal option is now in play. Her ruling states that by ignoring a complaint filed by Level the Playing Field, a nonprofit group trying to open up the presidential debates to a third-party candidate, the FEC has been active in ways that benefit the Republican and Democratic parties. (The plaintiffs in the case also include the Libertarian National Committee and the Green Party of\u00a0the United States.)<\/p>\n

Their complaint zeroes in on the presidential debate commission, alleging that the rules of the road adopted by the self-described nonpartisan organization eliminate any realistic possibility of allowing a third-party contender onto the debate stage. The lawsuit alleges that in so doing, the nonprofit debate sponsor has violated federal election laws; the suit asks for the FEC to intervene, a request that has so far been ignored.<\/p>\n

Although neither the commission nor the FEC responded to a request for comment on the judge\u2019s ruling, commission officials have long insisted that they are not trying to hinder viable candidates from participating in the process, but that it makes sense to afford a platform to presidential candidates with a realistic chance of being elected. The debate commission is neither congressionally mandated nor constitutionally protected, and some commissioners have pointed out that other organizations can sponsor debates if they choose.<\/p>\n

But Level the Playing Field maintains that the 15 percent support threshold needed for participation under the commission\u2019s rules effectively bars a third-party or independent candidate. The group\u2019s legal complaint argues that an independent candidate would need to achieve a minimum of 60 percent national name recognition in order to hit the 15 percent polling marker. The plaintiffs contend that the commission rule is unfeasible in terms of time and money \u2013 a third-party candidate would have to rally massive support by the time the general election debates begin, no easy task since such candidates often don’t possess the finances and sheer manpower of their major party rivals.<\/p>\n

It all comes down to the limited tools with which independents are forced to work. Independent candidates generally cannot get on the ballot for closed primaries. Additionally, they are allowed to accept no more than $5,200 from any individual donor for the two years leading up to the election, while their Republican and Democratic counterparts can receive up to $537,000 in \u201csoft money\u201d donations under FEC rules. Under these conditions, reaching the minimum support threshold is all but impossible.<\/p>\n

Alexandra Shapiro, the New York-based lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the lawsuit is specifically contesting the 15 percent rule.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe ball is now in the FEC\u2019s court,\u201d Shapiro said, noting that the commission has been given 30 days as of Feb. 1 to reconsider or further explain its decision to dismiss LPF\u2019s complaint. It has likewise been given 60 days to reconsider the petition for rulemaking to change the debate regulations as the plaintiffs have requested.<\/p>\n

Their hope is that the lawsuit will ultimately require the FEC to enforce its own election laws on the CPD. The regulations would then be modified to \u201cexpressly prohibit using a polling threshold as the exclusive way to get into the debates,\u201d said Shapiro.<\/p>\n

The complaint also highlights another alleged sign of favoritism toward a two-party system. Key members of the commission have repeatedly donated to the Republican and Democratic national committees, and poured thousands of dollars into the respective parties’ presidential campaign coffers. These donations, the complaint argues, show that the CPD is violating its core tenet of nonpartisanship.<\/p>\n

Shapiro also stressed the partisan backgrounds of founding chairmen Paul Kirk and Frank Fahrenkopf, who are former heads of the DNC and RNC, respectively. She cited statements made at the group\u2019s 1987 inception that it was bipartisan and would not look favorably on including third-party candidates in debates, as reported by The New York Times<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe debates should be run by a group that is going to operate the process in a more nonpartisan manner,\u201d Shapiro added. \u201cIf the rules were changed and there was a legitimate way to get a third-party candidate into the debates, we could see a whole new process in the 2020 presidential election.\u201d<\/p>\n

Just how that process may take shape could vary greatly. Level the Playing Field envisions choosing a third-party candidate from a signature-gathering competition or from a nationwide primary conducted exclusively online.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe key here is that we have a broken political system,\u201d says former under secretary of state James Glassman. \u201cBut how do you fix it? There\u2019s talk of changing campaign financing, gerrymandering, but [LPF] has realized there\u2019s one fairly small way to change it all: simply change the debate rules.\u201d<\/p>\n

Glassman, who worked in the George W. Bush administration and is now advising Peter Ackerman, the force behind Level the Playing Field, also asserts that it\u2019s backwards to use polling to determine access to the political process. \u201cNo state uses polling as a way for people to gain access to anything on the ballot,\u201d he said. \u201cWhether it\u2019s for the mayor, governor, or so on, it\u2019s signature gathering.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another alternative floated by reformers is a nationwide online primary, a election process Glassman believes would \u201creally capture the imagination of the American public.\u201d<\/p>\n

This method would also set a minimum threshold: \u201cMaybe 2 million votes, 5 million \u2013 we would discuss with the commission on what would qualify,\u201d Glassman said. \u201cBy having a national primary, we would be inviting all the states to participate, not just places like Iowa and New Hampshire. Everyone would have an equal vote.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even those who share Ackerman\u2019s goals wonder if litigation is the most effective way of challenging the status quo. Terry Michael, the former senior media adviser for Libertarian Gary Johnson\u2019s presidential campaign, believes that discussion, as opposed to a lawsuit, is the best way for alternative parties to move forward.<\/p>\n

Michael said his advice for the Johnson campaign during the 2016 election was to not pursue the matter in the courts. Rather, he pushed for a discussion with the commission in the hopes that the organization would change its regulations in time for Johnson to make the general election debates. Michael said the CPD was \u201cobstinate\u201d in its defense of the 15 percent rule, but he wonders if the commissioners would have been more open to negotiation if they hadn\u2019t been sued.<\/p>\n

Michael, who served as the DNC\u2019s press secretary when the commission was first established, also doubts whether the FEC has the jurisdiction to dictate conditions to the debate commission, which is not a government entity.<\/p>\n

But the official stance of the Libertarian National Committee, another plaintiff in the case, is decidedly more optimistic. Nicholas Sarwark, chairman of the LNC, noted that the FEC has control over debate organizations through a federal statute; that statue requires debate sponsors to act in a nonpartisan manner. If the CPD is shown to be in violation but remains bipartisan, Sarwark said it would have to \u201creport as a campaign organization and not take corporate funds,\u201d thereby losing its status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.<\/p>\n

Sarwark admits there is nothing inherently wrong with an organization wanting only Republicans and Democrats on their stage, but the debate sponsors must drop the nonpartisan label.<\/p>\n

The Libertarian committee chairman is uninterested in talks with the CPD: \u201cOur party\u2019s stance is that you don\u2019t really negotiate with terrorists. They stonewall us every time and are bound and determined to exclude us from their \u2018campaign commercial.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Sarwark doesn\u2019t believe the CPD would negotiate in good faith anyway, saying the commission members \u201cweren\u2019t interested in talking about meaningful change. If anything, it would be more along the lines of a delaying tactic to blow us off for the next few years. As a plaintiff, you shouldn\u2019t bring a suit and then negotiate against yourself.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for the Libertarian Party\u2019s path to the debate stage, it is focusing on traditional ballot access. If a candidate has sufficient access and a pathway to win the Electoral College, he or she should be allowed on the debate stage, Sarwark said.<\/p>\n

And if there must be a polling standard in addition to ballot access, the Libertarian Party believes pollsters should reframe their line of questioning. For example, voters are typically asked, \u201cWould you vote for this candidate if the election was held today?\u201d Instead, Sarwark believes voters should be asked whether they would like to hear from multiple candidates at the debates. If polls were framed this way, the numbers would likely shift in third-party candidates\u2019 favor.<\/p>\n

The Green Party points to another obstacle: the difficulty in even getting its candidates on the ballot. \u201cIt\u2019s an effort that takes so much time and money that it handicaps alternative party candidates,\u201d said party spokesman Scott McLarty.<\/p>\n

Les Francis, a former executive director of the DNC and deputy White House chief of staff under President Carter, tried to nudge the commission in an entirely different direction during the 2016 election.<\/p>\n

\u201cI tried, obviously without success, in the lead-up to the 2016 elections and through back channels, to offer an alternative to both LPF and the CPD, whereby there might be a \u2018playoff\u2019-type system, something similar to NCAA basketball,\u201d Francis told RCP.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn my scenario, some number of \u2018independent\u2019 or minor party candidates \u2013 their viability tested by polling both name recognition but also by more probing questions \u2013 would square off in debates either before or just after the nominating conventions. The top two or three finishers, according to an average in well-regarded national polls, would participate in the first debate with the major party nominees, and then if one or more hit a threshold of say, 10 percent, would go to the second debate. Another round of polling could determine the makeup of round three.\u201d<\/p>\n

Francis said these negotiations were not possible, however, as a negative campaign against the debate commission had already \u201cpoisoned the well regarding any further, productive conversations.\u201d<\/p>\n

There was, however, one aspect to the case all groups agreed on: No matter the pathway to get on the debate stage, a third-party candidate is a needed antidote after the Clinton and Trump campaigns.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is no better argument for including candidates like Jill Stein than from what we saw at the debates last year,\u201d McLarty asserted.<\/p>\n

James Glassman concurs. \u201cWhen you get down to it, we have a broken system that is getting more broken by the minute. It\u2019s because when we only have two parties, each one goes into its own corner,\u201d he said. \u201cYou frequently end up with extremism, while the vast majority of Americans are in the middle. Even if the independent choice doesn\u2019t win, that person would have a big impact on pulling the other candidates to the middle to create a more constructive election.\u201d<\/p>\n

Source: Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n\n\t<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From RealClearPolitics, one of many articles on the recent court order from the lawsuit against the FEC and the CPD… Except for 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been sued in every presidential cycle since it was formed in 1987. Those court challenges, usually centering on opening the process to more candidates, have never […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nThird Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics - Fix the Debates<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics - Fix the Debates\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"From RealClearPolitics, one of many articles on the recent court order from the lawsuit against the FEC and the CPD… Except for 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been sued in every presidential cycle since it was formed in 1987. Those court challenges, usually centering on opening the process to more candidates, have never […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Fix the Debates\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T06:07:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T06:15:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lance Brown\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lance Brown\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/\",\"name\":\"Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics - Fix the Debates\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-02-11T06:07:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T06:15:48+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#\/schema\/person\/5343bd120709edf60274027e3c5b922a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/\",\"name\":\"Fix the Debates\",\"description\":\"It's not democracy without open debates\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#\/schema\/person\/5343bd120709edf60274027e3c5b922a\",\"name\":\"Lance Brown\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/2.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9b6aafab759c77b5ab7531e1ef25b95?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/2.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9b6aafab759c77b5ab7531e1ef25b95?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Lance Brown\"},\"url\":\"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/author\/lance-brown\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics - Fix the Debates","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics - Fix the Debates","og_description":"From RealClearPolitics, one of many articles on the recent court order from the lawsuit against the FEC and the CPD… Except for 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates has been sued in every presidential cycle since it was formed in 1987. Those court challenges, usually centering on opening the process to more candidates, have never […]","og_url":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/","og_site_name":"Fix the Debates","article_published_time":"2017-02-11T06:07:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-11T06:15:48+00:00","author":"Lance Brown","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lance Brown","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/","url":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/","name":"Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics - Fix the Debates","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-02-11T06:07:55+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T06:15:48+00:00","author":{"@id":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#\/schema\/person\/5343bd120709edf60274027e3c5b922a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/cpd-and-debate-reform-in-the-news\/third-parties-see-chance-for-spot-in-presidential-debates-realclearpolitics\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Third Parties See Chance for Spot in Presidential Debates | RealClearPolitics"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#website","url":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/","name":"Fix the Debates","description":"It's not democracy without open debates","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#\/schema\/person\/5343bd120709edf60274027e3c5b922a","name":"Lance Brown","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"http:\/\/2.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9b6aafab759c77b5ab7531e1ef25b95?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"http:\/\/2.gravatar.com\/avatar\/e9b6aafab759c77b5ab7531e1ef25b95?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Lance Brown"},"url":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/author\/lance-brown\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2914"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2914"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2914\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2917,"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2914\/revisions\/2917"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2914"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2914"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fixthedebates.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2914"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}