(MintPress) – In a country that serves as a beacon of democracy, third party candidates are fighting for their rights to appear in U.S. presidential debates — the very engines that drive politicians’ messages to the American public.
Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson is challenging just that. On Friday, he filed an antitrust lawsuit, alleging the corporate-sponsored debate system is set up to keep third-party candidates out — a move that violates the antitrust law, which seeks to maintain an even playing field, in terms of competition in the business world.
While politics may not be an official business, the debates are certainly set up to exclude certain parties, mainly those that do not neatly fall into the Republican and Democrat slot.
“There is nothing remotely surprising in the fact that a private organization created by and run by the Republican and Democrat Parties has only invited the Republican and Democrat candidates to their debates,” Johnson’s senior adviser Ron Nielson said in statement sent to MintPress. “It is a bit more disturbing that the national news media has chosen to play the two-party game, when a full one-third of the American people do not necessarily identify with either of those two parties.”
While most Americans vote for either a Republican or a Democrat, it seems as though many citizens actually feel as though they could identify with independent parties. A Washington Post/ABC Poll showed this year that 46 percent of respondents would at least consider voting for a third-party candidate. However, only 22 percent say they would be confident enough to actually do so.
Who’s allowed in the club?
When it comes to presidential debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates calls the shots. According to its criteria, a candidate must qualify on three grounds in order to be a voice in the final show.
First, a candidate must be constitutionally eligible to serve as president — a pretty basic criteria that applies to third-party candidates, as well as representatives from the established two-party system.
Second, a presidential candidate has to have been given permission to appear on enough state ballots that could, hypothetically, warrant a victory in the electoral college system. In August, Johnson had already secured spots on 47 state ballots — surely enough to qualify him for this criteria.
Finally, a candidate must appear to have 15 percent of the public’s support, as determined by three regulated national polls. If the average of three polls is 15 percent or more, the candidate is good to go. This is where Johnson — and most other third-party candidates — run into a problem. The only candidate not belonging to the two major parties to make their way onto the debate floor was Ross Perot in 1992.
“It is unfortunate that a successful two-term governor who is already assured of being on the ballot in 47 states and the District of Columbia is forced to turn to the courts to break up a rigged system, but it appears that fairness is not to be found otherwise,” Nielson said.
In a way, it’s a double-edged sword. The first debate between then-candidates Barack Obama and John McCain garnered a whopping 52.4 million viewers. Without that type of exposure, a third-party candidate has little-to-no chance of generating that kind of attention to their own political beliefs. The cycle of the two party system is perpetuated, without any realistic chance of changing.
The lawsuit
The lawsuit is based upon the argument that the two political parties have created an organization to run debates that conspires to restrain and “exclude the presidential and vice presidential nominees of a third party from participating in the only nationally televised president, and vice-presidential, debates… ,” according to court document.
Johnson’s lawsuit seeks to suspend debates until his requests are met.
Joe Hunter, communications director for the Gary Johnson campaign, said in an email to MintPress that the lawsuit specifically focuses on the allegation that the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee are limiting participation and, in the process, restraining commerce, which is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Established in 1980, the Act allowed the government to dissolve situations in which a form of a “trust or otherwise” was restraining trade or commerce.
In essence, Johnson is calling out the Republican and Democratic parties from rigging the debate system. Created in 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates was established by the two parties, which means they were also responsible for setting the rules. Prior to this, the League of Women Voters ran campaigns, but dropped their efforts after the Commission was established.
In that light, it’s no wonder they’re intent on keeping third-party candidates out.
Whether left leaning or right leaning, third-party candidates could interfere with the campaign of the presidential nominee they’re more aligned with. Candidates may also raise and answer questions a little differently, knowing that, realistically, they’re there to change the direction of the debate, not exactly take the whole election.
“American voters deserve a real debate between now and Election Day,” Nielson said. “By excluding Gov. Johnson, the Commission on Presidential Debates has guaranteed that there will be no one on the stage challenging continued wars, calling for a balanced budget now — as opposed to decades down the road, and who has never advocated government-run health care.”
Will Johnson’s bold move change anything?
This isn’t the first time the Commission on Presidential Debates has been sued. Former Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and former Reform Party presidential nominee Pat Buchanan attempted to challenge their way to the debates, but fell short.
Considering the debates are run by both major political parties, thanks to backings from lobbyists and major corporations, it’s unlikely the rules will change in any way that will undermine the system.
Johnson’s move to challenge it on the grounds of antitrust law could be shaky in court, as he would have to argue the political system was defined in a business sense. So, unless the public perks up and addresses the rules created by the Commission itself, it seems as though the show will go on, with just two shining stars on the stage.