On January 2, John Edwards responded to the “Rock the Debates” question. Larry Reinsch asked Edwards if he would agree to an inclusive general election presidential debate if he were the Democratic nominee. “Inclusive presidential debate” means that everyone who was on the ballot in states containing a majority of electoral votes would be invited. In all U.S. history, there has never been an election with more than 7 such candidates (including the major party candidates).

Edwards said, “No. Because I think that it depends on first of all, it depends on how serious a candidate they are. I don’t know if you’re aware of this…there are hundreds of people running for President right now.”

Larry Reinsch said, “Only five. Only five on the ballot usually.”

Edwards then said, “But, let me finish responding. I think the problem is this. This has nothing to do with excluding people, it has to do with a very practical issue. You remember Ross Perot participated in the debates when he was an Independent candidate for President. I think as long as you have a legitimate chance, yes. But what you can’t do is flood the state with 15 or 20 people…I’d like to see the debates expanded, and candidates who are not Democrats or Republicans, if they are strong and viable, and they actually have some chance, yeah, I’d be open to that possibility. I’m not open to the possibility of bringing 15 or 20 people up to the stage, because I think it dilutes the substance of the discussion.”

Reinsch then again said, “It would only be five.”

The exchange appears to show that Edwards didn’t listen to Reinsch’s point. For a list of all the presidential candidates who were on the ballot in states containing a majority of electoral votes, see the chart in the printed July 1, 2007 Ballot Access News. Once more, congratulations to Larry Reinsch, an Iowa resident who has asked “the question” to most of the leading major party presidential candidates this year. To see the earlier responses of other major party presidential candidates, see www.rockthedebates.org. Edwards’ response isn’t posted yet, but it will be soon.

McCain 37%, Romney 32%, Huckabee 11%, Giuliani 9%, Paul 8%, Thompson 1%, Hunter 0%, others 2%.

Congressional Quarterly has this article about the problems caused by the fact that the Federal Election Commission currently only has two commissioners. Normal strength is six. Two commissioners cannot comprise a quorum. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Senate and in the White House are deadlocked so no new commissioners can be appointed.

One of the pending FEC matters not mentioned in the CQ article is the Socialist Workers Party request for an extension of its exemption from reporting campaign finance information. Back in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Socialist Workers Party need not report its campaign contributors, or how the party spends its money. The exemption was based on the historical record that individuals identified publicly with that party ran a risk of harassment. The FEC then exempted the party, but always set an expiration date for the exemption. Each time the exemption has run out, the FEC has renewed it, after determining that the harassment continues. The current exemption runs out this year, and the SWP has asked for another exemption. But the FEC cannot act on such legal matters until it has a quorum.

Thanks to Rick Hasen’s election law blog for the link.