Rich Whitney, Green Party candidate for Governor of Illinois in this month’s election, filed a federal lawsuit against a public television station before the election, over the station’s sponsorship of a debate that did not include him. Whitney will pursue the case even though the election is over. Here is his complaint, which had been filed on October 29. The case is Whitney v Window to the World Communications, 2010-cv-7003. It is assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman, a Clinton appointee.
Richard, is this complaint substantially different from earlier complaints in similar circumstances? It seems very well done to me, and looks like it will provide a good platform for attacking the idea that producing and broadcasting debates is “covering” a “news event” and therefore explicitly exempt from FCC regulations. What are our chances here?
The case will be won or lost depending on the extent to which Whitney can show that he had a real campaign. The reason Ralph Forbes lost his debate lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court is that he didn’t have a campaign headquarters and he raised and spent almost no money.
You are all fools for pursuing single winner district elections both plurality and IRV, where maximum satisfaction level is 50% plus one vote.
Under pure proportional representation (PR) the satisfaction level is 99% plus 100 votes guaranteed.
You are helping to perpetuate the two-party system and you are wasting valuable fuel, ammo and time.
Meant to write…under pure proportional representation (PR) in 100-member districts, gives you a guaranteed satisfaction level of 99% plus 100 votes.
The “fools” part was correct. Fools!
How many total cases about pre-2010 and even post-2010 election day stuff ???
How many cases about pre-2012 election day stuff already ???
— i.e. nonstop cases 24/7 — due to the party hack SCOTUS folks unable to detect *equal* in the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amdt, Sec. 1.
#3 In the Forbes case, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that all ballot-qualified candidates should have been permitted to be in the TV forum, and that the AETC was equivalent to a public park or courthouse steps which all candidates had a right to access.
The Supreme Court overturned that decision 6-3, and even Stevens in his dissent seemed to agree:
“Like the Court, I do not endorse the view of the Court of Appeals that all candidates who qualify for a position on the ballot are necessarily entitled to access to any statesponsored debate. I am convinced, however, that the constitutional imperatives that motivated our decisions in cases like Shuttlesworth command that access to political debates planned and managed by state-owned entities be governed by pre-established, objective criteria.
In particular, what Stevens objected to was that the AETC had apparently already made its decision two months before the filing deadline.
Whitney in his complaint essentially admits that the TV station did use objective criteria by asserting that the IRS has not established a safe harbor for use of polling data in maintaining tax-exempt status.
You don’t think that Supreme Court will bite on the argument that the decision to exclude a candidate who was running 4th in the polls was based on political viewpoint (eg Whitney was challenging duopolism, while Scott Cohen was running for ego purposes and did not have a articulated political platform).
How many non-Donkeys/Elephants have been appointed to SCOTUS since 1861 ???
#8 David Davis?
Great work Rich Whitney!
1. I can understand that [may] real issues arise if all ballot access candidates for an office are invited to participate in a debate at the same time. I think that their seems to be a push to cut it off at two or let everyone participate.
I think both suggestions [may have real world, problems. If you have got a dozen people seeking the same office, you are going to need a big stage, have headaches getting a day and time for them to meet and then dealing with the limited amount of air time given to the event.
#11 What the TV station in Chicago did was use polling, which showed little support for Scott Cohen, Rich Whitney, and Lex Green.
Since Cohen received more votes than Whitney, (and also showed more support in the polls, it appears that the Green Party is resting its case on the fact that the Green Party is an “established” party in Illinois, while the Libertarian candidate was on the ballot by petition, and Cohen was running as an independent.
But if you have rules like that, you will hit problems like when Adlai Stevenson didn’t like his Lieutenant Governor candidate and ran as an independent. The same thing could have happened this year if Cohen had not withdrawn after winning the Democratic primary, and Quinn having to switch.
A standard based on how earnest a candidate or his party is is not objective. And one based on how much money a candidate has raised will also exclude many 3rd party candidates. The reason the minor party and independent candidates want in the debates, is because they can’t compete in political advertising.
And in the unlikely event that Whitney did win his lawsuit, the effect would probably be for TV stations to simply get out of the debate business, because the major party candidates are likely to skip the debate, or they could end up giving equal time, which is even worse for them.
It seems interesting as much as I understood , but if someone could translate this to Italian, it would be great for me to get the idea better. I hope to come back and check this out later.