jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (12 posts)

Should the Commission on Presidential Debates lose its tax-exempt status?

  1. FitnezzJim profile image83
    FitnezzJimposted 17 months ago

    Should the Commission on Presidential Debates lose its tax-exempt status?

    Politico.com is reporting (September 2, 2016) that the Libertarian VP nominee claims the Commission on Presidential Debates could lose tax exempt status by excluding Libertarians from the 2016 presidential debates.

    The Commission controls who we learn about during televised debates prior to elections.  To be invited to the debate, the rule (not law) is that a candidate needs over 15% of voter support as shown in a series of polls prior to the debate.  The article shares that this rule was made when %30 of American voters identified as Independent.  Today, that number is nearer to 50%.

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13180917_f260.jpg

  2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image61
    Dont Taze Me Broposted 17 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13181035_f260.jpg

    Like who cares?

    During the last week of September, 2012, three sponsors withdrew their sponsorship of the 2012 debates for not including third parties: BBH New York, YWCA USA and Philips Electronics.

    Multiple lawsuits have been filed by third-party candidates challenging the CPD's policy of requiring a candidate to have 15% support in national polls to be included in Presidential debates. While the lawsuits have challenged the requirement on a number of grounds, including claims that it violates FEC rules and that it violates anti-trust laws, none of the lawsuits has been successful, all dismissed so how is it they will lose their tax exempt status?

    The libertarian party is grasping at straws to get publicity in hope to change the 15% threshold they know they will never reach. What they should be doing is running a real candidate with public recognition who can have a chance of winning instead of candidates the Republican voters have already rejected.

    1. FitnezzJim profile image83
      FitnezzJimposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      The main sponsors for the Commission are the Democratic and Republican Party.  Constructing rules to not invite third parties to the debate is similar to constructing laws against voting.  It is suppression of other of views being voiced.

    2. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image61
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Evidently the courts have never ruled that way. Why would anyone think they would now?

    3. FitnezzJim profile image83
      FitnezzJimposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      My understanding is that the Commission has no legal authority.  If that is the case, is it not true that any arbitrary rule they make is outside the jurisdiction of a legal challenge?  The networks choose to play along.  We can choose not to.

    4. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image61
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      We? You mean we don't watch? Who is not going to watch the debates? at least until Hillary shrills or has a coughing fit or a seizure!  Can't stand listening to her voice & her goofy comments "What, like with a cloth?" President?lol

    5. FitnezzJim profile image83
      FitnezzJimposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I would skip watching the debates, especially if I thought they had become nothing more than a propaganda tool for the major parties.

    6. Dont Taze Me Bro profile image61
      Dont Taze Me Broposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, it would be better if they were a propaganda tool for all 4 of the parties. There are 4 right? Or are there more? Get them all in there, in the name of the free propaganda amendment.

    7. FitnezzJim profile image83
      FitnezzJimposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      There are more than four.  Four are expected to be on the majority of States Presidential Election Ballots.
      thegreenpapers.com has good information, listed by state.  The political party sites show states that will have them on the ballot.

    8. bradmasterOCcal profile image31
      bradmasterOCcalposted 17 months agoin reply to this

      I don't intend on watching the debates, and I didn't watch any during the primaries. They show nothing and the format precludes really discussing the important issues.
      The news is not entertaining and debates are neither news or entertainment  4me

  3. tamarawilhite profile image92
    tamarawilhiteposted 16 months ago

    It is definitely a case of the major stakeholders shutting out smaller players.
    I'd love to see the Green Party candidate debate Clinton.

    1. FitnezzJim profile image83
      FitnezzJimposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      To be fair, if a candidate has qualified to be on State ballots such that those States have enough electoral votes to support a win, then they should be able to debate all others who have qualified.

Closed to reply
 
working