A Closer Look at Gary Johnson’s Anti-Trust Lawsuit
By Taylor Tyler | 09/24/2012 | Elections 2012, Electoral Reform, Headline, Organizations, President | 10 Comments
Photo: Gage Skidmore
As noted Sunday by another IVN contributor, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed an anti-trust lawsuit Friday against the Commission on Presidential Debates, the Democratic National Committee, and the Republican National Committee.
Here’s a closer look at the legal reasoning and aspects of Gary Johnson’s anti-trust lawsuit:
Challenging Johnson’s exclusion from the presidential debates, the suit claims the rules have been designed by the two major parties to intentionally exclude third parties from the only nationally-televised debates.
It is widely believed that participating in the presidential debates is necessary to have a chance of winning the election. “From that premise, it follows that the participation by a candidate in the nationally-televised debates is equally critical to his or her candidacy,” states the suit.
Since the president and vice president are paid a salary, the suit argues that their run for the White House can be considered commerce and can be pursued under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
“The defendants are conspiring and contracting to restrain the plaintiffs from participating in the electoral process,” further stating, “actions to conspire or contract to prevent plaintiffs from election by excluding them from debates is actionable ‘restraint of trade.’”
Johnson and his running mate, Jim Gray, ask that the courts provide a temporary restraining order, preventing the debate from occurring unless “all constitutionally-eligible candidates are included whose names will appear on the ballots in states whose cumulative total of electoral college votes is 270 or more.”
The debate sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates, issued invitations Friday only to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, announcing that the two candidates were the only ones who qualified to appear in the debates under their “Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Criteria for 2012 General Election Debate.“
Johnson qualifies under the commission’s first two criteria, and is one of four candidates who has a mathematical chance of winning the election. The fourth is Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
The problematic and seemingly arbitrary criterion in question establishes that candidates must “have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination.”
According to a Reason-Rupe poll released Friday, Gary Johnson currently has the support of 6% of likely voters.
Senior Johnson adviser Ron Nielson said in a campaign press release:
“There is nothing remotely surprising in the fact that a private organization created by and run by the Republican and Democratic Parties has only invited the Republican and Democratic candidates to their debates. It is a bit more disturbing that the national news media has chosen to play the two-party game, when a full one-third of the American people do not necessarily identify with either of those two parties.”
The full document containing Gary Johnson’s anti-trust suit can be read below:





Leave Your Comment →
10 Comments
Lucas Eaves
09.24.2012
@lucaseaves
It is a very interesting way to see the role of president, something that as to do with commerce.If considered as commerce and anti-trust laws are applicable, then it is true that the two parties and the organisation in charge of the debate really look like they are agreeing to exclude any third party from that market.
Looking forward to see what a judge will say about these arguments.
Alex Gauthier
09.24.2012
@alexg
this is going to be an uphill battle, but broadening the debate would be beneficial for everyone
W. E. Messamore
09.24.2012
@W__E__Messamore
The sticking point for me is that Johnson is going to be on enough states’ ballots that he could conceivable win enough electoral votes to become president. Same for Jill Stein. I totally understand that there’s no point in making the presidential debates a circus and including everyone who’s running. The purpose of the debates is to help voters decide who to vote for, so if a candidate isn’t even capable of winning, it’s not fair to the other candidates nor voters to use up their time on someone who cannot win under any circumstances because they aren’t even on enough ballots. But if someone is eligible to become president and on enough state ballots to potentially win, voters deserve to hear from them and they deserve a forum to make their case to voters.
Michael Higham
09.24.2012
@michaelhigham
Every time I see Gary Johnson fighting his way to a national debate, I always say the same thing. He’s on the ballot in nearly all states, he’s an apt politician, he needs to be in debates. Of course he is going to face resistance in the process because he can disrupt the two-party process.
Jane Susskind
09.24.2012
@jsusskind
Framing the debates as integral to winning the election it correct. I am not sure though if Johnson can win the argument that their run for the White House is commerce. I think it will be very interesting to see what the judge says, and hopefully the court acts before the first presidential debate is set to happen.
cowboydroid
09.25.2012
What I’m hoping is that the courts, supposedly unaffiliated with political parties, can exercise their check on the power of other branches and actually follow through with the proper ruling. I’m sick of seeing conspiracy among the three branches to rob US citizens of their civil rights, their wealth, and their natural rights.
Brandon Fallon
09.24.2012
@bfallon
A reason why Gary Johnson and other third party candidates don’t receive high polling numbers is because the media doesn’t talk about them as much. If more people knew of Johnson and his views, then he would get more support.
Joi
09.24.2012
Johnson is on 48 state ballots – still working to beat the last 2 challenges and make it to 50. Most Americans would think that qualifies him to be on the debate stage.
Not letting Johnson on the debate stage is like holding a pageant with 3 contestents, allowing only 2 to parade on stage and then claiming that the one that didn’t get on stage has just as much chance as the other two at winning the pageant. It’s absurd. Americans should be outraged at the fraudulent debates.
Brandon Fallon
09.25.2012
@bfallon
Good analogy.
Mark Bellamy
09.24.2012
The whole point is to chip away at our 2 party dictatorship. I agree with Johnson’s platform but I would vote for a third party candidate anyway as I no longer see any value to voting for the 2 major parties.