Johnson, Stein Lose Debate Lawsuit, but the Fight Is Far From Over

image
Published: 29 Aug, 2017
2 min read

The US Court of Appeals tossed an anti-trust lawsuit Tuesday brought by Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, their respective parties, and affiliated groups against the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The court's opinion mostly echoed a lower court'd decision that there was no merit to the plaintiffs' claim that a) the CPD violated anti-trust laws under the Sherman Act, and b) plaintiffs didn't provide enough evidence that the debate commission was intentionally shutting out minor party and independent candidates.

READ MORE: Federal Judge Strikes Down Third Party Lawsuit against Debate Commission

"The injuries Plaintiffs claim are simply not those contemplated by the antitrust laws. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ anti-trust claims fail to meet the requirements of antitrust standing," the court writes.

One of the biggest issues with the lawsuit was that it challenged a private organization -- the Commission on Presidential Debates -- which allowed federal judges to rule that it had every right to set its own rules.

The legal fight against the debate commission, however, is far from over.

Level the Playing Field (LPF), et. al. v FEC is currently before a US district court, where plaintiffs have filed a second complaint against the FEC in May.

LPF challenges the debate commission's 501(c)(3) tax status. The CPD considers itself a nonpartisan organization even though members, including its co-chairs, have a financial and political investment in the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Further, LPF says the debate commission is violating federal law by not using "objective criteria" to determine debate entry, and the FEC continues to ignore the "mountain of evidence" against the debate commission.

IVP Donate

LPF says the FEC is acting “arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law” -- a charge Judge Tanya S. Chutkan made against the FEC in February.

The lawsuit aims to change the rules so that the CPD abides by federal law and uses nonpartisan and objective criteria when determining debate entry -- to give voters greater choice in presidential elections.

Under the current rules, it is all but impossible for an alternative candidate to get on the debate stage, and without the promise of media exposure, there is no incentive to run, leaving Americans with just two options.

"If these rules are not changed, we might as well write into the Constitution that only Republicans and Democrats can be president," says Peter Ackerman, CEO of Level the Playing Field.

You Might Also Like

“Cartoon illustration of Americans facing the U.S. Capitol as light pierces through red and blue partisan cracks, representing independent voters and hope for political reform.”
New Poll: Voters Want New Leadership – and They’re Turning to Independents
A new poll from the Independent Center highlights a clear message from the public: Americans are fed up with the current political leadership, and they’re ready for change....
12 Nov, 2025
-
2 min read
Massachusetts voters.
Ranked Choice Voting Momentum Surges in Massachusetts as Cities Push for Local Control
Ranked choice voting (RCV) continues to see a surge in momentum across the U.S. However, the state that has seen the largest reform growth in the last 5 years -- Massachusetts -- has received little attention. This is because the 10 cities that have approved RCV have not been able to implement it due to state law....
14 Nov, 2025
-
5 min read
Caution tape with US Capitol building in the background.
Did the Republicans or Democrats Start the Gerrymandering Fight?
The 2026 midterm election cycle is quickly approaching. However, there is a lingering question mark over what congressional maps will look like when voters start to cast their ballots, especially as Republicans and Democrats fight to obtain any electoral advantage possible. ...
11 Nov, 2025
-
8 min read