On June 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, issued a 13-page opinion in Level the Playing Field v Federal Election Commission, 19-5117. The decision says the Commission’s policy of limiting the general election debates to candidates who are at 15% at the polls in September does not violate any federal campaign laws.
The ruling says, “American politics has, for most of American history, been organized around two parties.”
The ruling says the 15% poll standard can sometimes be met by independent or third party presidential candidates. In support of that assertion, it nentions George Wallace, John Anderson, and Ross Perot. But John Anderson and Ross Perot were never at 15% in the polls in September, and the only polls that count for debate inclusion are in September of presidential years. Perot did very well in the polls in June 1992, but then in mid-July 1992, he dropped out of the race. He re-entered the race on October 1, 1992, but his best poll showing that month was 7%. Similarly, John Anderson was never as high as 15% in September 1980. It is true, however, that George Wallace was above 15% in September 1968. But that was over a half-century ago.
The decision is by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a Bush Sr. appointee. It is also signed by Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee; and Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee. Thanks to Darryl Perry for the news.
To be used to blast all non-d/r OFF the ballots —
esp in marginal gerrymander areas.
Just to be precise, the FEC does not set any limits, but it allows other organizations like the CPD to do it. (the word “commission” appears in both names.)
How much USA taxpayer $$$ cash involved in the rigged so-called debates ???
Statist gangster/monarch A vs Statist gangster/monarch Z.
Constitutional only if done in Deficit City or other Fed area ???
Top Ten/Six is the remedy.
Sure it would be nice to get a Court ruling, or legislation. But that’s not gonna happen.
I suspected as much months ago.
The third parties and Independents must on their own get full ballot access.
As soon as they do, the polling will adjust. I’ve written the new polling several times here in BAN comments.
Green 27%, Constitution 27%, Democrat 17%, republican 17%, Libertarian 13%, Reform/Alliance x/unknown/variable probably at least 15%
In reality, all elections are a struggle between the left and right. Duverger’s Law has served to contain them
by artificially creating the two centrist/reactionary party system.
The third parties are capable of doing this on their own. The Libertarian party routinely gets at or near full ballot access each cycle. Green party also gets close. They COULD help each other get on or near both with PLAS.
It is kind of late this cycle but they could help the other two get on all or most ballots. The presidential ticket.
And the Covid-19 is a problem.
So, for 2020, the GP and LP should go directly to PLAS. Help the other two as much as possible as an example for next cycle.
That would set up a three way race which the PLAS ticket could win in a close plurality 42/29/29.
To do this the GP must declare it is adopting PLAS and nominate a fusion ticket.
Hawkins/Walker is NOT a fusion ticket.
Ideally it should nominate Jo Jorgensen vp.
Then ideally the LP should dump Spike and nominate the GP fusion ticket.
All this in the next few weeks-early July.
The GP has just publicized its July convention agenda.
I have registered and donated to the Solidarity fund.
I have asked to speak FIRST, but I am not listed AT ALL.
WHO is going to speak up for PLAS?
The fix is in to suppress PLAS. It has been for quite some time.
The same forces have allowed Jo to win the LP nomination because it would be too obvious to do otherwise. But they saddled her with Spike.
Again, I have access to well over $5k and am willing to donate it to a PLAS ticket.
Up to about $40k.
PR and APPV [PENDING CONDORCET] and TOTSOP in Nevada
1 OF THE 18 STATES WITH VOTER PETS FOR STATE CONST AMDTS
—
Small pop State – 2 main pop areas
Las Vegas / Reno — likely major help from OR, CA, AZ — 3 more of such 18 States.
Richard,
Who or what is the plaintiff here?
I searched and came up with a few-all non political.
Is it an ad hoc group?
A non profit?
Who or what?
In PLAS theory, Level the Playing Field is getting the six political parties that cover/represent the entire political spectrum, full ballot access.
EVERY voter would have a political party that would generally represent their political positions AND be viable i.e. COULD possibly win the election.
It SHOULD result a new polling. From the democrats and republicans getting around upper 40’s-49%/49% leaving all others about 2% or less TO:
democrats (centrist)17%, republicans (centrist) 17%, Green (leftist) 27%, Constitution (rightist) 27%, Libertarian (Leftist/rightist/inclusive) 13%, Reform/Alliance (centrist/inclusive) x/unknown/variable-probably 15%.
Suddenly the 15% threshold is no problem.
The LP might struggle to reach 15%. Reform/Alliance might struggle. OR they COULD blow away the entire field if the voters decide on a single centrist inclusive party.
Richard,
Who or what is Level the Playing Field in this case? The Plaintiff?
18 states allow pets to vote? Scandalous! Pets should never be allowed to vote. Then again, considering the voting record of most of their owners, would we do any worse?
The decision saying the Commission’s policy of limiting the general election debates to candidates who are at 15% at the polls in September does not violate any federal campaign laws misses the real point. A polling requirement is likely stupid unless the number of candidates is unwieldy (it’s obviously not) but isn’t unfair in and of itself.
The problem isn’t the 15% requirement, the problem is that the polls don’t conform to the Commission on Presidential Debates’ own debate inclusion criteria. Which the court conveniently ignored. The CPD claims to have a three-point criterion.
1. A candidate needs to be legally qualified for the office of President (perfectly reasonable).
2. A candidate needs to be on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the electoral college vote (again, perfectly reasonable).
3. Be at an average of 15% in 5 national polls.
The problem here is that none of the national polls they choose actually include all the candidates who meet the first two points. So they are in violation of Federal Campaign Fiance laws because they have failed to have objective criteria for inclusion in the debates. Saying they have it means nothing if the evidence clearly shows that they don’t.
Brandon, I think some of the polls they choose do include candidates who meet the first two points. I remember some polls in 2016 did include Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. But you are right, it should be a requirement that all the chosen polls should do that.
https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/
mini-armies of lawyers in FEC cases.
—-
SCOTUS — too evil corrupt/STUPID —
esp. unable to detect NOOOO $$$ amount in 1 Amdt.
Seems like pretty much crickets here,
This is a very important case.
Isn’t it a known tactic to publicize court cases, file reports, publish stories etc. on important issues on Fridays, especially late Friday in order to suppress them?
The organization that oversees the debates should change its name to Commission for Bipartisan Debates.
Richard Winger could have headlined:
D.C. Circuit Rules CBD Legal
JR-
Commission for OLIGARCH Debates >>> COD
Mother Nature can sue about name – behalf of fish.
Commission on Presidential Entitled Elitist Debates.
UNITED STATES Court of Appeals and Denials.
Maybe Monday we’ll get a few more comments.
Well, maybe this will motivate some losers to adopt PLAS.
Give it a try rather than just bend over and take the loss-again.
At least ask for lube, losers.
You know I have been writing pretty much the same stuff since at least 2008.
Tom Knapp, had enough losing yet?
PLAS… for the win!!
William S. Saturn,
I note your little scuffle with paulie in IPR comments.
Why don’t you join my campaign and start making some news?;
rather than post about losers like Buchannan, Paul and Baldwin and Nader. And trump.
Top Ten/Six Plus PLAS-Level the Playing Field is the future of America, not these guys.
Winning the election is just the beginning.
Do you have any idea of the potential of America?
In the right hands?
And bring some of your peeps with you.
PLAS can use all the help it can get.
Excellent points Robert Milnes.
Thank you, Jordan,
whoever you are.
The DC circuit probably got paid off by the bosses of the united parliament.
I specifically like CBD Isolate Crystals because they do not contain any THC so I have peace of mind in the case that I have to take a drug test for work because I am a fire fighter.