On June 3, Independentvoting.org and its attorney, Harry Kresky, asked the Federal Election Commission to issue a new rule about general election presidential debates. Like the earlier request by Level the Playing Field, the request for a new rule seeks to expand entry into those debates. However, the IndependentVoting request points out flaws in the proposal submitted some months ago by Level the Playing Field. Here is the IndependentVoting submission.
Theoretically, only one electoral vote is needed to be elected president.
What constitutional authority does the Federal Election Commission have to regulate this matter?
The Commission on Presidential Debates is dependent on millions of dollars in contributions from corporations. Federal law still bars corporations from making contributions to federal campaigns and political parties (they can spend independently as a result of Citizens United v FEC). The FEC could promulgate a rule saying that the CPD debate rules are so exclusionary that in practice the corporations who fund the CPD are making contributions to the Dem and Rep presidential nominees, which is illegal.
What authority does Congress have to regulate presidential elections?
Buckley v Valeo (1976) upheld congressional power to regulate campaign finance in presidential elections, and to provide for public funding for presidential candidates.
By propping up the conventions and parties, Congress is interfering with the ability of the individual States to regulate the manner of their appointment of presidential electors.
In addition, funding of presidential candidates does not provide for the welfare of the States in general, since most of the expenditures is directed towards a few specific States.
The U.S. Constitution is utterly out-of-date when it comes to current practice of U.S. presidential elections. The U.S. badly needs to amend the Constitution concerning many aspects of presidential elections. I hope the National Popular Vote movement makes enough headway so that the nation will pass such a constitutional amendment. Another impetus that might someday bring about a constitutional amendment would be a presidential election in which presidential electors voted for someone for president in the electoral college that contradicts what they had promised to do, so that the outcome is changed. That was briefly a possibility in December 2000, when the final tally was Bush 271, Gore 266, one absention. Many Bush electors received lots of pleas to vote for Gore.