Gary Johnson Gary Johnson Files Anti-Trust lawsuit To get In Debates

[jay_dub]

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed an anti-trust lawsuit in federal court Friday to try to force his way into next month's presidential debates.

Johnson, who first sought the GOP primary nomination before launching a third-party bid, is suing the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates and both the Democratic and Republican parties, calling the CPD a "conspiracy."

The CPD was founded jointly by the two parties and the nominee, and the lawsuit alleges that they meet every four years to set the rules for the debate to "hoodwink" the American people.

Johnson is asking the courts to force the CPD to allow for all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes to have a spot on the debate state.

According to a release, Johnson’s running mate and retired California Superior Court Judge Jim Gray will argue the motion on the campaign’s behalf.

Johnson appeared in two GOP primary debates last year.

Complaint at link:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/gary-johnson-files-anti-trust-lawsuit-to-get-into

 

[jmdrake]

I know others will argue with me on this, but if there is ever a reason for anti-trust law this is it. The "commission on presidential debates" is not "nonpartisan", it's "bipartisan". It exists solely for the benefit of the two parties to the detriment of the American people.

 

[specsaregood]

I know others will argue with me on this, but if there is ever a reason for anti-trust law this is it. The "commission on presidential debates" is not "nonpartisan", it's "bipartisan". It exists solely for the benefit of the two parties to the detriment of the American people.

but it doesn't use any public funds.

 

[acptulsa]

but it doesn't use any public funds.

Who cares? Most trusts don't. Monopolies can be dealt with in court, and antitrust laws are never aimed at the government (which is pretty much by definition an monopoly).

 

[specsaregood]

Who cares? Most trusts don't. Monopolies can be dealt with in court, and antitrust laws are never aimed at the government (which is pretty much by definition an monopoly).

So your position is that anybody should be able to sue to get an appearance in whatever tv show they please?

 

[acptulsa]

So your position is that anybody should be able to sue to get an appearance in whatever tv show they please?

Nope. Not even close. But if the Democrats and Republicans can pass, then not repeal, antitrust laws, then the Democrats, Republicans and CPD can damned well live by them.

 

[specsaregood]

Nope. Not even close. But if the Democrats and Republicans can pass, then not repeal, antitrust laws, then the Democrats, Republicans and CPD can damned well live by them.

I hear ya. The problem is they don't have a monopoly. There is nothing stopping anybody else from creating their own debates, getting sponsors and inviting candidates.

 

[acptulsa]

I hear ya. The problem is they don't have a monopoly. There is nothing stopping anybody else from creating their own debates, getting sponsors and inviting candidates.

True. But so long as the two most well-known candidates refuse to come, and the CPD refused to admit anyone else, I can see where an antitrust law could well apply. And if that's what it takes to get those two to belly up to podiums in the presence of someone with sane policies (and television cameras at the same time), I say they should go for it.

I could see people who don't even approve of Johnson contributing to this legal fund. There is nothing stopping anyone else from doing a debate, but the CPD has a monopoly on the major party candidates. The president is practically a public utility. Let the courts order him into other, superior debates, and let us see if he has any respect for the court.

I don't know if it will work. But it will give us a chance to initiate more educational conversation. And in the meantime, it'll no doubt give us more opportunity to show everyone the news blackout.

 

[jay_dub]

I like seeing Johnson push this and it's not unreasonable what he's asking for, which is that any candidate that has qualified to be on enough ballots to get to 270 electoral votes be allowed in the debates. That threshold is hard to argue against, though I don't know how the argument would go in an anti-trust suit.

If he could somehow win this, it opens up things a lot for third party candidates. It would be a great victory.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I like seeing Johnson push this and it's not unreasonable what he's asking for, which is that any candidate that has qualified to be on enough ballots to get to 270 electoral votes be allowed in the debates. That threshold is hard to argue against, though I don't know how the argument would go in an anti-trust suit.

If he could somehow win this, it opens up things a lot for third party candidates. It would be a great victory.

You forgot about the cost....it's going to fail....it's a waste of resources.

 

[kathy88]

You forgot about the cost....it's going to fail....it's a waste of resources.

If it garners attention among people who never realized that third parties were intentionally excluded from debating it is not a waste of resources, no matter the cost. See my signature.

 

[acptulsa]

You forgot about the cost....it's going to fail....it's a waste of resources.

lol

You're right. And what's more, those responsible for OSHA, FDA, DHS, DHHS, EPA, ED, DOE, and all that other expensive and ineffective alphabet soup will say 'it's a waste of resouces' with a straight face!

You really do have to be special to be president, don't you? With a straight face. That's talent, right there...

 

[jay_dub]

You forgot about the cost....it's going to fail....it's a waste of resources.

...it's going to rain.....my coffee is cold......those grapes were probably sour anyway...

 

[jay_dub]

If it garners attention among people who never realized that third parties were intentionally excluded from debating it is not a waste of resources, no matter the cost. See my signature.

Allowing viable third party candidates into the debates would be a great victory.

Johnson's running mate will be arguing the motion, so no cost there. He's a retired Superior Court Judge so maybe he knows how to approach this. Of course, it's said that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client, so who knows?

In any case, for all our sakes, I'm hoping for a good outcome with this.

 

[AFPVet]

I agree... if he's on the ballot in all 50 states, that should get him an immediate slot.

 

[acptulsa]

I agree... if he's on the ballot in all 50 states, that should get him an immediate slot.

He isn't, but it just isn't that difficult to convince most Americans that Oklahoma doesn't count.

Trust me on this one.

 

[jay_dub]

He isn't, but it just isn't that difficult to convince most Americans that Oklahoma doesn't count.

Trust me on this one.

This article says Johnson won't be on the Michigan or Pennsylvania ballots, either.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/09/gary-johnson-on-ballot-in-states-135285.html

Regardless, he's on enough ballots to theoretically reach 270 electoral votes, so he should be included in the debates.

 

[TheGrinch]

I hear ya. The problem is they don't have a monopoly. There is nothing stopping anybody else from creating their own debates, getting sponsors and inviting candidates.

Of course they have a monopoly (even if it's a natural and not coercive monopoly is not so much the question, as if they're using exclusionary practices to maintain that monopoly. That's where anti-trust laws come in).

Furthermore, as is highlighted in the complaint, the Sherman Act was put in place to deal with monopolies and cartels, the latter of which is implied when the 2 parties conspire with one another to form a commission to restrict competition.

In essence, if you're going to be a monopoly (which is absolutely legal if it's a natural monopoly), then you cannot abuse that position to limit competition, particularly not having the 2 parties who are supposed to be competing against one another to work together to limit competition.

 

[tuggy24g]

This article says Johnson won't be on the Michigan or Pennsylvania ballots, either.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/charlie-mahtesian/2012/09/gary-johnson-on-ballot-in-states-135285.html

Regardless, he's on enough ballots to theoretically reach 270 electoral votes, so he should be included in the debates.

FALSE Johnson is on the ballot in PA
http://www.dailypaul.com/254835/pen...wins-first-ballot-fight-corrupt-gop-to-appeal

 

[thoughtomator]

Johnson's argument is that anyone who can theoretically win the election should be included in the debates. I agree and I think it's the right strategy for him. He needs to take some risks because the safe route is a sure distant 3rd place.

As far as the anti-trust laws go, I agree that the major parties need a taste of their own medicine here. It is an effective monopoly and only the most tortured argument could deny that plain truth of the matter. There's nothing to lose by pursuing this and the potential payoff is worth the resources.