Gary Johnson Files Another Suit Against The Commission on Presidential Debates

Gary Johnson 2012

Citing survey data showing former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson has in fact achieved the narrow criteria required for inclusion in the Monday debate, earning more than 40 percent of the vote in “head-to-head” polls against President Barack Obama, the Libertarian Party nominee’s campaign today filed a complaint in Federal Court in the District of Columbia maintaining that Johnson has, in fact, met the Commission on Presidential Debates’ criteria for inclusion. The complaint asks the Court to compel the CPD to include Johnson.

“The CPD requirements say Johnson ‘must register support of at least 15 percent of the vote in five recent polls,’” Johnson campaign counsel Alicia Dearn said in a statement. “Nowhere does it say those polls must include three candidates. Indeed, the polls used by the CPD to exclude Johnson test only two candidates even though Gov. Johnson is on the ballot in 48 states. We argue that Gov. Johnson has met the specific and narrow criteria laid out by the CPD.

“Included in the two-party ‘deal’ struck by the Republicans and Democrats are the criteria by which candidates are invited to participate. As a two-term governor who is on more than enough states’ ballots to be elected in the Electoral College, the decision to exclude Gov. Johnson can only be based upon the CPD’s self-determined polling criterion — using polls that are ‘head-to-head’ surveys between Romney and Obama. Who decided that? The CPD rules do not specify the number of candidates to be tested in the poll. Using their own methodology, polls that ask voters’ preferences between the President and Gov. Johnson are equally valid, and as we have demonstrated, will show more than enough support for Gov. Johnson to meet the CPD’s arbitrary 15 percent requirement. The same would clearly be the result when Gov. Johnson is surveyed against only Gov. Romney. Nowhere does it say that only the Republican and the Democrat should be pitted against one another,” Dearn said.

“It must be repeated that the official-sounding Commission on Presidential Debates is not official at all. It is a private organization created by the Republican and Democratic Parties for the clear and admitted purpose of controlling the presidential debate process. Everything from the schedule to the participants to the water glasses on stage are determined by way of an MOU between the two parties, to the exclusion of everyone else.

Two debates have already happened, and have excluded Gov. Johnson. We can’t change that — no matter how unfair. However, the CPD has one last opportunity to do the right thing for Monday night’s debate, which we have asked them to do via a letter transmitted Thursday. However, we are not holding our breath for an answer, and have asked the Federal Court to help them do the right thing. Also, we make it clear in our complaint that this issue does not end Monday night, and that it is not just about Gov. Johnson. We are also asking for a permanent injunction to require that the CPD’s criteria be changed for future elections to correct the organization’s fundamental unfairness.

“The American people need to understand that the presidential debates are televised productions of the Republican and Democratic Parties. Nothing more. And those productions are designed to exclude alternative voices and ignore the simple fact that one-third of the electorate does not belong to their exclusive clubs.”

A copy of the Johnson campaign’s complaint and letter to the CPD are available here.

A Letter To The Editor Regarding Southwest Airlines And The Presidential Debates

You may not be aware of this but because of pressure from consumers, 3 sponsors have pulled out of the Presidential Debates thus far. On Monday it was BBH New York, on Wednesday the YWCA dropped out and on Friday it was Philips Electronics.

As you can see, public opinion does matter to large corporations. With that in mind, we need to make it known to the other debate sponsors that there are those of us who are not happy with the Commission on Presidential Debates' decision to exclude other qualified 3rd party candidates from the upcoming debates.

Well, Southwest Airlines is one of those debate sponsors. They need to be put on notice that we are unhappy with their decision to support the exclusion of qualified 3rd party candidates who are on the ballots in enough states to have access to 270 or more electoral votes and thus a mathematical chance of winning the Presidency.

By excluding these candidates, Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein, Southwest, as well as the remaining six other sponsors, are actively silencing the voices of candidates who can influence the outcome of the election.

We know Southwest Airlines' senior management is aware of the issue as responses to email inquiries to the company show.

After careful review of the CPD’s request for Southwest Airlines involvement in the upcoming debates, our Senior Leaders felt that the core values of Southwest Airlines aligned with the CPD’s mission of providing American Citizens the opportunity to make informed decisions.

To this end, we must continue to pressure Southwest to reconsider their sponsorship and end their involvement with these sham debates.

I ask you all to email a Letter to the Editor of the Dallas Morning News (200 words or less), the major daily newspaper in Southwest's home city of Dallas. Also provided are the email addresses to Southwest executives so they may receive a copy of your letter. Blind copies should be sent to three additional Texas newspapers in cities served by Southwest as well.

Together we can make our voices and the voices of all qualified Presidential candidates heard.

Thank you for your support.

Here is a copy of the email that I sent, but remember to be effective you should use your own words.

To: letters@dallasnews.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com

cc: gary.kelly@wnco.com, jeff.lamb@wnco.com, ron.ricks@wnco.com, dave.ridley@wnco.com, kevin.krone@wnco.com, linda.rutherford@wnco.com, ellen.torbert@wnco.com

bcc: letters@statesman.com, viewpoints@chron.com, letters@express-news.net

Subject: Why is Southwest Airlines limiting our choices in the upcoming Presidential election?

To the editor:

As a businessman who is a frequent traveler through Dallas and who regularly uses Southwest for my other business and personal travel, I am disheartened to hear that Southwest is suggesting that I only have the choice to vote for a Republican or a Democrat for President.

In sponsoring the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization of professional Republican and Democratic functionaries in DC, Southwest is doing just that; preventing me and two hundred million other American voters from hearing other qualified candidates for President who will be on the majority of ballots this November.

I strongly disagree with Southwest's statement to me that, "The Senior Leadership of Southwest Airlines felt that their core values aligned with the CPD’s mission of providing American Citizens the opportunity to make informed decisions" given they are not allowing the American electorate to hear all the options in order to make that informed decision.

If a "core value" of Southwest is to silence the voices of qualified Presidential candidates, other than those from the Democratic or Republican parties, I wish to no longer do business with them.

Southwest should stay out of politics and not have a hand in influencing this important election.

Chris Walsh
San Tan Valley, AZ

And, if you wish to get in touch with the other six sponsors, here is their contact info as well:

Crowell & Moring LLP
At Crowell – Moring LLC, the Chairman is Kent A. Gardiner and his email is
kgardiner@crowell.com

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
One Busch Place
St. Louis, MO 63118
800-342-5283
E-mail Contact Form: http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/Contactus/email.asp

The Howard G. Buffet Foundation
158 W Prairie Ave, Suite 107
Decatur, IL 62523-1442
Also:
121 S 51st St
Omaha, NE 68132
402-556-6641

Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Farr, Miller & Washington
1020 19th Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
800-390-3277
202-530-5600
202-530-5508 Fax
Email: sscohen@farrmiller.com

International Bottled Water Association
1700 Diagonal Road
Suite 650
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-683-5213
703-683-4074 Fax
Email: ibwainfo@bottledwater.org
800-WATER-11 (Information Hotline)
http://bottledwater.org

The Kovler Fund
aka Marjorie Kovler Research Fellowship
c/o John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum
Columbia Point
Boston, MA 02125
617-514-1624
617-514-1625 Fax
Email: kennedy.library@nara.gov

Gary Johnson And Jim Gray Sue The Commission On Presidential Debates

If you believe Gary Johnson and Jim Gray should be included in the debates, sign the petition.

Examiner.com

On Friday, the Libertarian presidential ticket of former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and former California Superior Court judge Jim Gray filed an anti-trust lawsuit in U.S. District court to ask the court to force the Commission on Presidential Debates to include all presidential candidates who have enough ballot access to have a mathematical chance of winning the presidential election to have a spot on the debate stage.

The lawsuit accuses the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Commission on Presidential Debates of violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, which prohibits certain business activities that reduce competition, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of being in violation. The relevant part of the law is Section 2, which reads:

“Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.”

If the lawsuit is successful, this year's CPD-sponsored debates will either expand to include the Libertarian candidates as well as the Green Party ticket of Massachusetts physician Jill Stein and Pennsylvania anti-poverty advocate Cheri Honkala, or be canceled.

Via Memeorandum

Gov Gary Johnson Sends Letter To The Commission On Presidential Debates

Gary Johnson 2012

On Monday, August 20, 2012, Gov. Gary Johnson sent the following letter to the Executive Director, the Co-Chairmen, and the Board of Directors of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The Commission on Presidential Debates began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between presidential candidates.

Inclusion in the Presidential Debates


To the Commission on Presidential Debates,

I am writing to request that the National Commission on Presidential Debates reconsider your current – and exclusionary – requirements for participation in this Fall’s all-important Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates.

I am well aware of the history and genesis of the Commission, including the reality that it was created largely by the respective national leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. While I respect and understand the intention to provide a reasonable and theoretically nonpartisan structure for the presidential debate process, I would suggest that the Commission’s founding, organization and policies are heavily skewed toward limiting the debates to the two so-called major parties.

That is unfortunate, and frankly, out of touch with the electorate. You rely very heavily on polling data to determine who may participate in your debates, yet your use of criteria that are clearly designed to limit participation to the Republican and the Democrat nominee ignore the fact that many credible polls indicate that a full one-third of the electorate do not clearly identify with either of those parties. Rather, they are independents whose voting choices are not determined by party affiliation.

That one-third of the voters, as well as independent-thinking Republicans and Democrats, deserve an opportunity to see and hear a credible “third party” candidate. I understand that there are a great many “third party” candidates, and that a line must be drawn somewhere. However, the simple reality of our Electoral College system draws that line in a very straightforward and fair way – a reality that is reflected in your existing criteria. If a candidate is not on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to be elected by the Electoral College, it is perfectly logical to not include that candidate in a national debate. If, on other hand, a candidate IS on the ballot in enough states to be elected, there is no logic by which that candidate should be excluded.

Nowhere in the Constitution or in law is it written that our President must be a Democrat or a Republican. However, it IS written that a candidate must receive a majority of the votes – or at least 50% – cast by electors, and that any candidate who does so, and otherwise meets the Constitution’s requirements, may be President.

As the Libertarian Party’s nominees for Vice-President and President, Judge Jim Gray and I have already qualified to be on the ballot in more than enough states to obtain a majority in the Electoral College, and we are the only candidates other than the Republican and Democrat nominees to have done so, or who are likely to do so. In fact, we fully intend and expect to be on the ballots of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

However, the Commission has chosen to impose yet another requirement for participation: 15% in selected public opinion polls. Unlike your other requirements, this polling performance criterion is entirely arbitrary and based, frankly, on nothing other than an apparent attempt to limit participation to the Democrat and the Republican.

Requiring a certain level of approval in the polls has nothing to do with fitness to serve, experience, or credibility as a potential President. Rather, it has everything to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars available to and spent by the two major party candidates, the self-fulfilling bias of the news media against the viability of third party candidates, and an ill-founded belief that past dominance of the Republican and Democrat Parties should somehow be a template for the future.

In all due respect, it is not the proper role of an nonelected, private and tax-exempt organization to narrow the voters’ choices to only the two major party candidates – which is the net effect of your arbitrary polling requirement. To the contrary, debates are the one element of modern campaigns and elections that should be immune to unfair advantages based upon funding and party structure. Yet, it is clear that the Commission’s criteria have both the intent and the effect of limiting voters’ choices to the candidates of the two major parties who, in fact, created the Commission in the first place.

Eliminating the arbitrary polling requirement would align the Commission and its procedure for deciding who may participate in the critical debates with fairness and true nonpartisanship, which was the purported intent behind the Commission’s creation. As of right now, eliminating that requirement would not disrupt the process or make it unmanageable. Rather, it would simply allow the participation of a two-term governor who has more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Romney combined, who has garnered sufficiently broad support to be on the ballot in more than enough states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College, and who, without the help of party resources and special interests, has attracted enough financial support to qualify for presidential campaign matching funds.

I urge and request you to remove the partisanship from the debates, and allow the voters an opportunity to hear from all of the qualified candidates – not just those who happen to be a Democrat or a Republican.

Thank you.

Governor Gary Johnson

Libertarian Nominee for President of the United States