Late on the evening of August 15, a U.S. District Court refused to issue injunctive relief for Bob Barr, in his attempt to be included in this year’s first joint appearance of general election presidential candidates. The event is set for August 16 at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Only Barack Obama and John McCain had been invited.
Anyone is free to sponsor any debate and invite whom they choose, except that a tax-exempt organization, or an organization that takes tax-exempt donations from corporations to pay for the event, must have objective criteria in place as to whom is being invited. Saddleback Church did not have any pre-announced objective criteria. Thus, in effect, the church was using an indirect government subsidy to assist the campaigns of Senator Obama and Senator McCain.
If the law is so clear, what was the judge’s reasoning (other than protecting his career prospects)?
It would have been easy for Saddleback to adopt onerous but objective criteria to restrict participation to Obama and McCain. Perhaps it’s better they didn’t set that precedent for other non-CPD forum sponsors.
This sticks to high Heaven! Or down to somewhere else?
The “objective criteria” requirement is interesting. In my opinion, “objective criteria” may only be used to reduce the number of candidates to the largest manageable number. However, most organizations seem to go beyond that, and use criteria the pick out the candidates they want. Why not use the objective criteria “you must be at 15% in the polls, and you must be under age 60”? Then only Obama could participate.
Perhaps it was because it was on private, church, land? I am not sure. Judges can be amazingly prejudical and unprofessional when dealing with non-major party voters and candidates.
USSC Judges that I admire and disagree with both oftentimes have rather odd and embarassing legal theories on non-major parties; ballot access and debate access rules especially.
Today, Justice Ginsberg seems like she is some what more sympathic, but I think she used to work with th ACLU, so that may be why.
I think the judge was correct in not stopping the forum, and I think he was correct for not forcing the church to invite someone.
However, I believe the judge has left enough rope for this particular church to lose it’s tax exempt status. This can only take place after the event happens. Maybe this church can be held for it’s actions, ipso facto, to drive home the point to other churches across the country.
If the Church wants open discussion then invite Barr and Baldwin. I urge all gop members to donate a few bucks to both barr and baldwin so we get some debate about the future in this Country. ( I just Donated To Bob)
In my opinion this was a lost cause for Barr from the get go. The case law is pretty clear that the courts don’t want to get into the business of micromanaging campaigns or the media. As soon as the courts accept the proposition that candidates have a “right” to participate in debates they are inviting endless litigation over what qualifications a candidate must have to make the cut.
In fact, considering the matter from all angles, I cannot see any upside to the lawsuit, even in the court of public opinion.
Not surprising at all. Private event, private property, no IRS issues because this is a forum and not an endorsement.
This is just sour grapes by Barr.
BTW, the forum will be webcast on http://www.ktla.com
Having been in the courtroom, the judge conceded that there was merit, but not enough at the late hour to justify an injunction that would hurt those involved unduly. The Barr campaign waited too long trying to work with Saddleback Church.
The judge specifically left it open for appeal, and the campaign decided against pursuing it, because their objective was not to destroy other people’s hard work but to try and get the church to at least acknowledge the campaign and the issue of campaign finance laws. The big win was to raise the onus of McCain-Feingold upon McCain himself.
Yesterday’s Zogby poll shows that 55% of Americans want Barr included in such public events, the church deciding not to do so was not because he is fringe, but because they made a political decision. Its their right to make that decision, but the rules need to apply to everyone, or no one, and there is no way to change them except to challenge them and bring them to public light.
ALIVE * FREE * HAPPY
Libertarian
The news blackout evidently continues, as I haven’t seen anything about Barr’s legal move in the TV news.
Interesting that McCain mentioned Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) as one of the top three whose advice he’ll seek as president.
Interesting, too, that the “separation of church and state” has not been raised.
Richard Shepard is not entirely correct when he says the courts never do anything in cases of this type. In 2006 a US District Court Judge ordered a Florida debate to include the Reform Party nominee. That decision came just a few hours before the debate was to start. So the organizers had to add a third podium.
It sounds like an argument for changing the tax code. Why should gifts of any sort be subject to administration and oversight by the government?
Michael Seebeck wrote : “Not surprising at all. Private event, private property, no IRS issues because this is a forum and not an endorsement.
This is just sour grapes by Barr.
BTW, the forum will be webcast on http://www.ktla.comNot surprising at all. Private event, private property, no IRS issues because this is a forum and not an endorsement.
This is just sour grapes by Barr.
BTW, the forum will be webcast on http://www.ktla.com”
The fact of the matter it was NOT A PRIVATE EVENT. The media covered it exstensively and the link provided by Mister Seebeck furnishes proof of that.
We all owe the Barr Campaign a tip-of-the-hat for exposing this travesty to the American Public.
Well Richard how would a legal challenge of their tax exempt status be contested?
Well, if a Church sponors a debate they should be able to invite or not invite the candidates that they want.
The problem is that if the Church is tax exempted/non-profit it is suppose to have objective standards in palce for which candidates it does and does not invite. The Church did not, but the judge did not seem to care.
Perhaps, he feels that such a requirement is a 1st amendment violation. Does anyone know where we can read the judge’s decision?
What is keeping Barr and the others from taking Warren’s questions and answering them, then going to the media that broadcasted Warren’s questioning and telling them “Rick Warren apparently isn’t ‘fair and balanced,’ but if you’re really ‘fair and balanced’ you’ll give Barr equal time”?
Warren never claimed to be “fair and balanced.”
If (when) that so-called news channel turns you down, you could sue them for false advertising and get an injunction to keep them from using that phrase.
Larry West wrote: “If (when) that so-called news channel turns you down, you could sue them for false advertising and get an injunction to keep them from using that phrase.”
The FCC did away with regulations requiring Commercial Broadcasters furnish equal time to subjects of political programing in 2000.
The first group to exploit this opening was NARAL that unleashed a merciless barage of attack ads on Ralph Nader. And there wasn’t a thing Nader could do about it.