The Ohio News Organization sponsored candidate debates this year for the gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races. Only the Democratic and Republican nominees were invited to these debates. Last month, Dan La Botz, Socialist Party nominee for U.S. Senate, complained to the Federal Election Commission that the Ohio News Organization did not list any objective criteria for its debates, and furthermore that no polls in Ohio had included everyone who is on the ballot for that office. The U.S. Senate race has five candidates on the ballot.
On October 21, the Ohio News Organization responded to the La Botz complaint. The Ohio News Organization says that its objective criteria is that it wants the two front-runners to be the only participants in its debates. That is not what is usually meant by “objective criteria.” Generally, “objective criteria” means some particular showing in the polls. Even the Commission on Presidential Debates has a 15% poll showing, to determine who gets invited. It will be interesting to see the FEC’s reaction to the Ohio News Organization’s defense.
Dan has run a really interesting campaign here in ohio. will be interesting to see what happens in the polls. i think he might get 2%-3% which is pretty high for third party canidates in ohio
Of course it’s objective! As long as there are only two candidates covered in the media — and only two candidates asked about in the polls (or asked about individually, as opposed to “a third party” or “someone else”) — then who finishes in the top two positions is bound to be objective. . . .
Any objections? (Now, let’s not always see the same hands. . . ;] . . .)
1. He won’t get 2-3%; the latest Rasmussen poll for the Ohio senate race shows 2% for all the 3rd party candidates combined, and support expressed for 3rd party candidates in pre-election polls virtually always collapses by orders of magnitude on Election Day. If he breaks the 1% barrier that would be a major victory. I can’t recall the last time a candidate with the word “Socialist” next to his or her name polled over 1% in a senate race.
2. As for “objective,” their sole criterion is absolutely objective, as opposed to subjective. There’s nothing subjective, or wishy-washy, or gray area, about picking the top two polling candidates. It’s very simple and clear (unless there’s a third candidate who is statistically tied with one of the top two). Is it fair? No. Is it lame? Yes. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it biased against 3rd party candidates? Yes. Is it lazy on their part? Yes. Is it subjective? I’m afraid not, which makes it a very clever response to Dan’s complaint.
If one reads the U.S. Supreme Court opinion Arkansas Educational TV Foundation v Forbes carefully, one sees that even though the U.S. Supreme Court said independent candidate Ralph Forbes could be excluded from the debate, public TV cannot exclude any candidate with a substantial campaign. I do not believe that saying only the two leading candidates may participate is what was meant when the FEC, the IRS, and the FCC, said that debate sponsors must set forth objective criteria. The criteria must relate solely to each participate candidate, not their relative position against each other.
What was the form of the October 21 response of the Ohio News Organization? Do you have a link?
One of the newspapers in the Ohio News Organization had the following article at the time that Mr. La Blatz made his complaint.
http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20100921/NEWS09/100929952/-1/RSS
“Marion H. Little, Jr., a Columbus attorney representing the newspapers, said the papers used polling data and other objective criteria as required to invite only Mr. Portman and Mr. Fisher to participate.”