Rigged, partisan, unfair, biased, and likely illegal US Presidential Debates

What do you think? If they don't do it (the request below), shouldn't everyone who wants it boycott the debates? Also, shouldn't someone actually get a court order preventing the debates for cause? Afterall, "criteria #3 which is based on the candidate's performance in popular polls, because the third party candidates have been consistently excluded from those polls. How can a candidate achieve 15% in polls from which his or her name have been consistently excluded? It's an impossible task."

Isn't that then proof that the debates are frankly illegal? Can Parties conspire to deny access to the media by other parties? If it isn't illegal, it should be. It certainly is against the spirit of the law.

PETITION: We want to see all Presidential Candidates on the 2012 Debate Stage this Fall who qualify on enough ballots to win the Presidential Election!
September 9 · Started by Jo Ann Vacirino · Invite Friends ·
To: The Commission on Presidential Debates (www.debates.org)
To whom it may concern at the Commission on Presidential Debates:

This petition aims to demonstrate Electoral Support of otherwise eligible third party candidates who have been excluded from popular polls and therefore face an impossible challenge in meeting criteria # 3.

Please allow all candidates who meet the criteria #1 and #2:


to appear on the debates stage this Fall.

We are asking that you revise or eliminate criteria #3 which is based on the candidate's performance in popular polls, because the third party candidates have been consistently excluded from those polls. How can a candidate achieve 15% in polls from which his or her name have been consistently excluded? It's an impossible task.

(third criteria wording):
The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.

It is too late in this election to simply revise the polls to contain the other viable candidates to resolve this problem. At this point, the candidates who have been included already have an unfair advantage.

We ask that you revise the third criteria for debate stage access to reflect circumstances in which the candidates have been excluded from the polls since that type of incomplete polling cannot accurately reflect electoral support.

It is not up to the media and polling companies to decide who Americans get to see on the debate stage. It's up to Americans. Since the polling companies have failed to provide Americans with all of the viable choices in the popular polls, the polling companies can no longer be depended on for a valid report of "Level of Support".

We would like to remind you what your Mission Statement says:
"The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 to ensure that debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners. Its primary purpose is to sponsor and produce debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates and to undertake research and educational activities relating to the debates. The organization, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) corporation, sponsored all the presidential debates in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008."

Please fulfill your mission and include all candidates who meet criteria 1 and 2 on the debate stage this Fall. Americans are counting on you to produce truly non-partisan, fair and unbiased Presidential Debates.


The no longer silenced electorate



The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • "Third Party Candidate – Who Is On the Ballot In All 50 States – Files Lawsuit Demanding Inclusion in Presidential Debates" http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/third-party-candidate-files-lawsuit-demanding-inclusion-in-presidential-debates.html

      That's pretty consistent with my thinking in the post above. I don't know whether anti-trust will fly. I doubt it because anti-trust is focused upon the commercial and not the political (in the common usage). However, anti-trust certainly does speak to the spirit of the law. That same spirit should apply to public political-campaigns.

      Unfortunately, anti-trust hasn't been utilized much (if one believes in coercive democracy; the system in the US) lately. Consolidation, monopoly is in vogue. Why the people allowed the Democrats and Republicans to take the debates away from the League of Women Voters and to introduce the ridiculous 15% polling requirement speaks about the mental weakness of American voters. The people simply should have said no. Most voters then though were members of the Democratic or Republican Party.