Today I learned from @kpkpkp: agreeing with a political candidate’s goals means I must endorse all tactics he or she uses to accomplish them. Terrifying to know.
1 Like
I mean, look at Sanders. It’s hardly a stretch at this point to say that the media are going out of their way to avoid talking about him, but he’s polling so high he can’t be ignored. Lessig should just do the same thing.
3 Likes
I must have missed when Lessig made it clear he isn’t serious about his campaign. Maybe it’s his degrees in economics, philosophy, and law that tag him as a not so serious person. Maybe it’s his decades working as a political activist. It’s hard to pin down. But you are probably right. We can’t just let anyone run for president and be allowed the same forum as the political and journalistic elite. That might end up in change and we can’t have that can we?
But wait… didn’t the 1927 Radio Act and later the Communications Act of 1934 guarantee equal time for anyone running for any office? Oh, that’s right, the political elite paid off our lawmakers to make an exception to that rule for debates by calling them “news events” instead of debates after Reagan took office.
So, who gets to be the gatekeeper? Or, to put it another way, who gets to decide the list of people we get to vote for? Hmmm, maybe that’s why they made that law in the first place… Perhaps, no one should have that power, even in part.
1 Like
Honest question - who does? If I was a billionaire (relevant only in that I can meet financial hurdles) who wanted to run for the Democrats on a platform of nuking New York City, I have to assume they’d be able to say “No, that’s really not what our party is about.” Can they do that? I really don’t understand that system.
That doesn’t seem to line up with the facts at hand. Take Sanders for example. More people have donated to his campaign than any other yet the press, when they do speak about him, say his isn’t a serious campaign and that is has no chance of success.
And actually, they owe him as much air time as anyone else they decide to air. We actually made laws to ensure that - even though some of that changed when the new republicans came to town in the early 80’s.
1 Like
#Danger, danger, humpabella knows!!
#The cat has left the basket, I repeat the cat has left the basket
5 Likes
(The DNC and the RNC make the rules)
-
That’s not really the case any more, and
-
That’s precisely my point anyway: the press didn’t want to talk about him, and yet the people have made themselves heard so we will be in the debates.
Lessig could do the same thing if he actually had anywhere near that kind of support.
And it’s not catch-22: Sanders got that kind of support without the press’s backing, and without having had any debates yet.
Not trying to continue that line of debate. It’s just that this is news to me. Who has received donations from more people than Sanders? I didn’t think anyone else was even close?
No, I’m saying the press do take him seriously now. The last month’s worth of articles in the Times, at least, describe him as an underdog, perhaps, but certainly as a very serious candidate.
There seems to be a level of defeatism in assuming that Lessig couldn’t do the same thing without the help of the press and the debates.
OK, that sounds reasonable. I’ll just wait for him to be discussed as a serious candidate by a non-dead medium.
BTW, Sanders is part of the political elite so he is going to get more press traction. He was a mayor, a member of the house, and of the senate. This is where you get the Bernie grass roots support from. He is already a player in national politics. I don’t think an outside has a real chance anymore. But insiders, heck… be married to a president and you can get elected as a senator in a state that’s not even yours. You can the use that as a springboard for a presidential run and people will take you seriously despite a dismal track record.
See, obviously the parties make the rules for the parties, but I guess I’m asking what those rules actually are. I mean, if someone does have a dangerous or preposterous platform, who would have the authority to say, “that is not in line with our party, we aren’t wasting time at our debate with you.” My far fetched example of detonating nukes on US soil aside, I actually think, “If I win, I’m not going to really be the president” seems like perfectly fair grounds for a party to say, “Then you aren’t going to be our candidate” if someone has the power to say that.
What I want to understand is, is it in any way unfair that Lessig is not allowed to participate? I mean, if basically debate inclusion is totally arbitrary, then it’s very easy to say, “That’s unfair.” But if there are written rules, then we could ask, “Are the rules fair” and “Are the rules being applied fairly.” Like I say, I could imagine a completely fair set of rules under which, single-issue-candidate-who-says-he’ll-resign would be excluded, but that’s not necessarily the rules that exist.
Not that knowing this would change anything, I just like to know the rules. And then judge the rules. And call the people who made the rules fascist idiots.
According to the DNC charter and bylaws, the elected chair. Though individual elected members of the DNC (superdelegates) could influence an actual national election.
But the invite list and purse strings (which includes debates)? Debbie Schultz.
Also, you can say you represent a party, but they are under no obligation to agree.
Hi Humbabella. Do the parties decide who is included in the debates? I remember both Fox and CNN excluded people from debates in the past. Do the parties do the same?
I mean, I’m aware of 11 CFR 110.13 and it seems to say anyone can join a debate if they are seeking a parties nomination. But the discussion between you an japhroaig seems to suggest it is the parties who decide who goes to the debate (kinda like the title of the article suggests).
I’m running for the Democrat nomination, and so’s my wife!
3 Likes
Both the RNC and the DNC foot rather large bills for ‘sanctioned’ debates. And at least the DNC has rules on what debates a candidate can show up to if it ever wants to attend another sanctioned debate (and use DNC funds for their shadow campaign).
So I doubt the parties have explicit veto, but they sure as hell have a de facto veto.
Yeah, that’s what I mean. So basically it’s like, “Should Larry Lessig be in our debates?” “I don’t know, let’s call Debbie.” Or could I actually go and read what the rules are?
That’s what I was hoping to find out. Is Lessig’s exclusion just a reasonable expression of the Democrat’s lack of desire to have a single-issue presidential candidate representing them, or is it just whatever-Debbie-says*.
* This is not an example of referring to a woman by her first name because she is a woman and a man by his last name because he is a man, I referred to Shultz by her first name to emphasize the apparent arbitrariness that this system would have. e.g. “I don’t know, ask Bill” sounds more arbitrary than “I don’t know, ask Clinton.” I stand by my decision that the rhetorical flourish was worth all of this additional typing.
1 Like
So a party may not restrict who goes to the debate under the law but the DNC has rules that say you can’t attend a ‘sanctioned’ debate (what is that anyway?) and the staging organization (Fox, CNN, etc) can restrict based on clear criteria and follow the DNC’s suggestions in violation of the law? Further, the RNC and DNC pay money to these staging organizations for the debates even though that too is not supposed to happen under the law and those payments effect who attends (also in violation of the law) Is that what you are saying?
Are you still referring to 110.13? Because I’m reading © and I don’t see anything in there that says the Dems couldn’t nix a primary candidate. There is language for pre-established objective criteria, but if the Dems really wanted to control who goes in, they just work with the debate staging org to establish criteria that the undesired debater cannot meet. Nothing in 110.13© forbids collusion with the party by the staging org in controlling who gets into the debate. Shady as hell, but not forbidden by 110.13©.
Is there another section you are looking at? Honest question. I’m a lawyer, but not an election law specialist, so I don’t know if there is another CFR section that forbids DNC tampering.
1 Like
I am not a lawyer. I ask these kinds of questions based on a layman’s view after reading the law.
I read this “staging organizations(s) shall not use nomination by a particular political party as the sole objective criterion” as saying that the party nomination (aka support) can’t be used to determine if a person can or can’t attend or conversely that a party doesn’t determine who can attend. But again, I ask about this because I really don’t know and am very interested in how all of this works (or is supposed to work).
