CPD Filing Deadlines: New Dates in Commission on Presidential Debates Fight

Shawn M GriffithsShawn M Griffiths
Published: 09 Aug, 2017
3 min read

Commission on Presidential Debates Update:

The Court has issued filing deadlines for the Commission on Presidential Debates Complaint:

  • Level the Playing Field's motion for Summary Judgment is due by 9/15/2017

LPF’s mission is to promote greater competition and choices in elections for federal office, particularly for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. Currently, the system is weighted to favor the duopoly.

The rest of the filing schedule is the following:

  • Amicus Briefs in Support of Plaintiffs (limited to 12 pages) are due by 9/22/2017
  • Defendant’s (Federal Election Commission) motion for Summary Judgment and Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion is due by 10/13/2017
  • Amicus Briefs in Support of the Defendant (limited to 12 pages) are due by 10/20/2017
  • Plaintiffs’ Combined Reply and Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion due by 11/10/2017
  • Defendant’s Cross-Reply is due by 12/8/2017. (jth) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

 

ORIGINAL STORY PUBLISHED 8/9/17

Level the Playing Field (CPF) has fired back on the FEC’s attempt to dismiss a second complaint against the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Plaintiffs in Level the Playing Field, et. al. v. FEC filed a motion Tuesday, August 8, to amend their supplemental complaint to include the Libertarian National Committee and Dr. Peter Ackerman in response to the FEC’s claim that LPF lacks standing.

The FEC argues that since Level the Playing Field is not a political party and gives no guarantee that it will run or back a candidate in 2020, it has no “competitor standing” to challenge the commission’s policymaking.

IVP Donate

Yet, as the plaintiffs point out, “the FEC had never suggested LPF lacked standing to challenge the denial of its rulemaking petition” -- until now. LPF immediately responded to add the Libertarian National Committee and Peter Ackerman to the rulemaking challenge.

“The FEC concedes that at least one of these parties has standing, and both clearly do,” the plaintiffs write. “The Libertarian Party has been excluded from every presidential debate staged by the CPD, and it will nominate another candidate to run in 2020.”

“The Libertarian Party is entitled to challenge the FEC’s refusal to address the illegal debate-qualifying rules preventing the Libertarian Party’s candidates from participating in debates.”

LPF further argues that Dr. Ackerman has a “statutory right to know who is making contributions to the CPD,” one of the principal complaints against the debate commission.

“Although the CPD is a ‘political committee’ that must disclose the identity of its corporate contributors, it evades these requirements by claiming the exemption for debate staging organizations,” the plaintiffs write.

“[T]he CPD does not actually qualify for that exemption, because it is a partisan organization that does not use objective debate-qualifying criteria.”

The FEC also, and absurdly argues that while LPF alleges that the CPD’s rules affect their ability to fundraise, fundraising isn’t the mission of LPF, therefore the “political voice” of the group is not injured.

On its face, the argument is ridiculous because no political group that endorses or runs a candidate has fundraising as its sole mission.

Let Us Vote : Sign Now!

“Further, LPF’s mission is to promote 'greater competition and choice in elections for federal office, particularly for the Presidency and Vice Presidency,'” the plaintiffs explain.

“To achieve this goal, LPF tries to recruit and sponsor independent presidential candidates. But the CPD’s rules make it virtually impossible for these candidates to run. If that does not “directly conflict” with LPF’s mission, it is hard to imagine what would.”

In short, LPF cannot reasonably guarantee it will run a candidate in 2020, and that is a direct result of the policymaking decisions of the FEC and the debate commission’s rules that make it impossible for independent and third party candidates to qualify for the debates.

Read more about the presidential debate lawsuit on the Independent Voter Project's website.

In this article

You Might Also Like

Trump
Trump Surged 14 Points with Independents: Did the Debate Change That?
An early Aug. PBS/NPR/Marist poll found Harris leading Trump by 11 percentage points among independents, but a Sept. poll puts Trump ahead by 3 points....
12 Sep, 2024
-
5 min read
Trump
Everything You Need to Know About the Trump-Harris Debate
Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are set to square off in what could be the first and only debate between the two candidates on Tuesday, September 10....
09 Sep, 2024
-
3 min read
debates
Is The Downfall of the Commission on Presidential Debates a Good Thing?
On September 10, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump will participate in the second presidential debate of the 2024 cycle -- but it will be the first time they share the same stage....
04 Sep, 2024
-
6 min read
Proposition 50 voter guide
California Prop 50: Partisan Power Play or Necessary Counterpunch?
November 4 marks a special election for what has become the most controversial ballot measure in California in recent memory: Proposition 50, which would circumvent congressional districts drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission for a legislative-drawn map....
01 Oct, 2025
-
9 min read
court gavel.
Virtual Discussion: The Fight for Equal Independent Voting Rights Makes it to SCOTUS
Every major voting rights movement in U.S. history – whether successful or not – has intertwined with landmark litigation. This was the case for women’s suffrage. It was the case for civil rights. And it is the case in the ongoing effort to protect the right of all voters to have equal participation in taxpayer-funded elections – something millions of independent voters are denied across the U.S....
29 Sep, 2025
-
2 min read
Supreme Court building
SCOTUS Considers Challenge to Closed Primaries -- Here's Why It Is Such a Big Deal
In a dramatic step forward for litigation challenging closed primaries, the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated they are going to conference to discuss whether to grant a writ of certiorari to Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State; a case challenging Florida's closed primaries that Open Primaries has supported since its inception....
26 Sep, 2025
-
2 min read