Gary Johnson Files Anti-Trust Lawsuit To Get Into Presidential Debates

Gary Johnson Files Anti-Trust Lawsuit To Get Into Presidential Debates

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed an anti-trust lawsuit in federal court Friday to try to force his way into next month's presidential debates.

Johnson, who first sought the GOP primary nomination before launching a third-party bid, is suing the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates and both the Democratic and Republican parties, calling the CPD a "conspiracy."

The CPD was founded jointly by the two parties and the nominee, and the lawsuit alleges that they meet every four years to set the rules for the debate to "hoodwink" the American people.

Johnson is asking the courts to force the CPD to allow for all candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes to have a spot on the debate state.

According to a release, Johnson’s running mate and retired California Superior Court Judge Jim Gray will argue the motion on the campaign’s behalf.

Exercise in futility?

I've never understood how we permit the exclusion of presidential candidates from debates who otherwise legitimately appear on the ballot.

This will be interesting follow.

Admittedly, I haven't seen much of this guy. Here is a recent interview of his with RT.

Go Gary !!!!




Heres Gary, for ya.

And his running mate:

He definately has my vote! Now they will do everything in their power to discredit him, just like they did the good doctor.

Good for him. It is about time. I hope he gets in.

I've kind of liked Mr. Johnson for awhile, never enough to want to vote for him though. But to the poster who wondered whether it's an exercise in futility, the answer is "yes." He's alleging "restraint of trade" and that "the marketplace of ideas" is being interfered with. And his VP is a judge?

First, there is no reason why the Girl Scouts couldn't put on a debate, nobody's stopping them, there's no restraint. Second "marketplace of ideas?" The Democrats and Republicans are preventing him from expressing his ideas? The fact that he isn't invited to the debates means he can't promulgate his ideas? Obviously he's free to, and has, look at all the ATSers who know about him.

Besides publicity, I don't see the sense in this.

reply to post by charles1952


Its mainly him trying to get his message to the American public. Personally I like to weigh all my options before making a decision. Let him debate Obama and Romney and see if his ideas resonate with the people.

These people pick who gets to debate. They choose the venue. They choose the format. They choose the moderators. They control the access. Ever heard of them? They Pull the Strings of the COMMISSION on PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES. It's an executive coup!

Frank Fahrenkopf, Jr. is a U.S. lawyer and was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1983 to 1989. Fahrenkopf currently is president and CEO of the American Gaming Association (AGA), the national trade association for the commercial casino industry.

Michael McCurry is best known as the former press secretary for Bill Clinton's administration. He is a Washington-based communications consultant and is associated with the firm Public Strategies Washington, Inc. He is also active within the administration of the United Methodist Church, serving as a lay delegate to the Church General Conference and on various denominational boards.

Howard Buffett eldest son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett.

Richard Dean Parsons is a former chairman of Citigroup and the former Chairman and CEO of Time Warner. Parsons is now a member of the economic advisory team for President Barack Obama. President George W. Bush selected Parsons to co-chair a commission on Social Security. Parsons also worked on the transition team for Michael Bloomberg, who was elected Mayor of New York City in 2001. In 2006, Parsons was selected to co-chair the transition team for Eliot Spitzer.

John Claggett Danforth is a former United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Before becoming the UN Ambassador he was the Attorney General of Missouri and United States Senator from Missouri. He is also an ordained Episcopal priest.

John Griffen served as Managing Director of Bankers Trust and G7 Group. He serves as Director of Allen & Company.

Antonia Hernández Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation, President & CEO The California Community Foundation, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

The Rev. John I. Jenkins President of the University of Notre Dame

Newton Norman Minow is an American attorney and former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Minow is currently the Honorary Consul General of Singapore in Chicago. He is Senior Counsel in the Chicago headquartered law firm of Sidley Austin LLP. Daughter is Dean of Harvard Law School.

Dorothy S. Ridings is president and chief executive officer of the Council on Foundations, a national association of some 2,000 foundations and corporations.

Alan Simpson is an American politician who served from 1979 to 1997 as a United States Senator from Wyoming as a member of the Republican Party. His father, Milward L. Simpson, was also a member of the U.S. Senate from Wyoming (1962–1967) and a former Governor of Wyoming (1955–1959) as well. Simpson was appointed in 2010 to co-chair President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

reply to post by METACOMET

Sure, you're absolutely right. Remember that the commission is a private business, not a government entity, and it's in the business of getting candidates together for a debate. The networks have decided to televise it.

You can set up an identical commission yourself. Invite the candidates, get the press to televise it, and there you are, no more monopoly.

Didn't Iowa have nationally televised debates? Easy enough to do.

It seems pretty obvious to me that somthing needs to be done about the way they are handling the elections and debates in modern times.

Look at every single pole that comes out, up wards of 2/3 of Americans feel disenfranchised, don't want either obama or romney as the only viable candidates, and are in general tired of business as usual.

The current system refuses to give the people what they want, a honest to god, GOOD candidate to vote on. Nobody wants to vote for either of these 2 parasites. But they are the only 2 choices we get, I mean WTF? We get big giant douche, or turd sandwich as our only options. " take your pick guys, we will allow you to vote for the guy you don't like, or the guy you don't want." " sorry if you don't like it, but these are the two that best serve our ends, so these are the two we will let you vote for"

I am not going to vote for big giant douche obama, or turd sandwich romney. Or was that turd sandwich obama and big giant douche romney? Oh hell what's the difference, they both only represent the elite and not the people, they are both the exact same guy.

Here is the future of America under either on of these worthless #wads- more war, more death, less freedom, less monney for us regular types, worse education for our children, more rediculous bailout spending on the rich that already have more than enough, more good jobs gone to be replaced by mcdonalds paying jobs...etc I would go on all day but we all already know all of this already.

I am just tired of this bull#, why do we HAVE to vote for one of 2 candidates we don't wannt, why can't we ever have a candidate that people actually want to vaot for?

You know, somebody that would actually do what's right for US, not what's right for northrup gruman, lockheed martin, haliburton, monsanto,GE,walmart, apple, google,lehman bros, BOA...etc.etc.......

I am tired of working like a slave for crap pay, I litterally made more in highschool with no skills or schooling or training, that most college level jobs pay today. It is discusting to watch.

My grandfather had 2 private sector retirments, and social security when he retired, the only people today getting a retirement are unions and .gov workers. You should not be able to make more off the tax payers than you can from the private sector, as one is productive and actually has a use, the other does neither.

reply to post by charles1952


Its a tax exempt 501c3 organization. Amazing racket. They take in mega "donations", pay no taxes and then choose whom may have access to the presidential debates. Look at who they work for, very telling.

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by charles1952

 

Its a tax exempt 501c3 organization. Amazing racket. They take in mega "donations", pay no taxes and then choose whom may have access to the presidential debates. Look at who they work for, very telling.

Yes, but that's ok, we don't mind that "those people" can help pick our presidents. To Hell with the voice of America, right? Just like how it was totally ok for the GOP to rig their primaries and destroy future grassroots candidates chances because they are a private "club" and can do whatever they want. All of these "clubs" clearly have the same agenda.


I really don't think the majority of Americans understand that the 2 parties and this "commission" are corrupted private "companies" and "clubs". I think if Americans could truly see this for what it is and see that their voices/votes are stuffed by these people and even admittedly so now, that we would have our second revolution. This is complete insanity and completely evil to it's core. I really really can't understand how anyone could defend this.