Presidential Debate Commission Under Fire — Again
by Kendall Shain in Electoral Reform Mar 17, 2017
It has been rough year so far for the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The group, which organizes the fall presidential debates and determines who will appear on the debate stage, may finally be forced to change their ways.
In February, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the government body tasked with regulating groups like the CPD, in Level the Playing Field, et al v. FEC. Chutkan reasoned that the rules governing participation in the presidential debates were decidedly unfairly and arbitrarily.
The plaintiffs sued the CPD, arguing that it violated federal antitrust laws by essentially ensuring that the major parties have a monopoly over presidential elections.
The current debate rules dictate that candidates reach a 15% average level of support in 5 national polls picked by the CPD in order to appear on the presidential debate stage. Candidates also must be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance at winning an electoral majority.
The FEC has signaled that they will not appeal the ruling. The commission will have to comply with Chutkan’s court order to provide new decisions on the administrative complaints against the CPD it previously dismissed by April 3.
And if the CPD was getting ready to slink back into the shadows, it is not going to be that easy. The U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, has decided it will hear Gary Johnson, et al v Commission on Presidential Debates on Friday, April 21.
The case was originally filed back in 2015 by Gov. Gary Johnson, Dr. Jill Stein, the Libertarian and Green Parties, and several affiliated organizations. The plaintiffs sued the CPD, arguing that it violated federal antitrust laws by essentially ensuring that the major parties have a monopoly over presidential elections.
The case was dismissed by federal court Judge Rosemary Collyer in August 2016. The judge ruled that there is little merit to the claim that the CPD is violating antitrust laws and there is no evidence the commission intentionally shuts out minor party presidential candidates.
One of the biggest issues this lawsuit faced in the past was that the CPD, unlike the FEC, is a private institution, allowing the judge to reason that the CPD has every right to determine its own rules.
Now, however, Johnson and Stein have another shot at making their case. Will they have better luck this time around? Stay tuned. We’ll keep you updated on the appeals process.
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
