The Libertarian party has filed Suit Against my University

[Alyrium Denryle]

HAHA, I have dressed my links!!

Code: Select all

Arizona Libertarians have filed a lawsuit that could stop Arizona State University from sponsoring the third presidential debate between George Bush and Sen. John Kerry, scheduled for Oct. 13. The lawsuit maintains that by spending up to $2 million to sponsor the event in Tempe, the university is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties.

"It's a clear case of misusing state funds," said David Euchner, attorney for the Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP).

"Arizona recognizes three political parties," Euchner continued. "A debate which included all three of those parties would be a legitimate expenditure on education and public information. A debate including only two of the three candidates is a partisan campaign commercial -- and an illegal donation to partisan political associations."

AZLP Vice Chair Barry Hess agreed: "It is so outrageous because the Republicans and the Democrats clearly violate their own Finance Reform Act, which in this case operates against all parties except the Republicans and the Democrats."

The AZLP and its treasurer, Warren Severin, are listed as plaintiffs in the suit, which seeks an injunction or restraining order against the use of state funds for the debate.

"Additionally, this use of these particular funds is in clear violation of the Arizona Constitution," Hess added.

The Arizona Constitution prohibits making grants or donations to any individual, association, or corporation.

Libertarians also claim that if special privileges are granted to Bush and Kerry, Arizona Libertarians will have been denied their 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee. The university and the Commission for Presidential Debates were named as defendants in the suit.

Representatives of the AZLP and of Libertarian Michael Badnarik's presidential campaign conducted a joint press conference after filing the complaint with the Maricopa County Superior Court.

"They have absolutely no right to use our tax dollars for what is effectively a very expensive television commercial for Bush and Kerry," Hess told reporters.

[aten_vs_ra]

Your university could get a good deal of publicity this way. Can I assume from the reading that the third recognized party is the Libretarian party. Furthermore were is their Presidential candidate? Or are they pissed because they couldn't find one.

[Rogue 9]

Your university could get a good deal of publicity this way. Can I assume from the reading that the third recognized party is the Libretarian party. Furthermore were is their Presidential candidate? Or are they pissed because they couldn't find one.

Their candidate is named Badnarik, IIRC.

[Sea Skimmer]

Legal or not, to me that sounds like way too much money for a school, let alone a state school to be spending on hosting a debate. Todays budget climate just isn't any good.

[Durandal]

Ah, I see, so every time a news network broadcasts a candidate on TV, they're giving him a campaign donation.

What a crock of shit.

[LadyTevar]

As it's been said before, American politics is a two-party system. Everyone else doesn't exist.

Which might explain why a WV judge threw out the Mountain Party's suit over their candidate not being invited to the official Gubenatorial Debates.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ah, I see, so every time a news network broadcasts a candidate on TV, they're giving him a campaign donation.

What a crock of shit.

There is a difference. The candidate pays to have their commercals put on the news, and the new company makes a profit from advertizing revenue.

A state school is an entirely different animal.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Your university could get a good deal of publicity this way. Can I assume from the reading that the third recognized party is the Libretarian party. Furthermore were is their Presidential candidate? Or are they pissed because they couldn't find one.

[url=http:/www.Badnarik.org]Micheal Badnarik[/url] and yes, we do recognize the LP in Arizona

[Alyrium Denryle]

damn it!!

Oh well... read the text of the argument. Their argument is sound, and unless the judge is a moron, they whould win.

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/images/Oct2A.pdf

[Durandal]

Ah, I see, so every time a news network broadcasts a candidate on TV, they're giving him a campaign donation.

What a crock of shit.

There is a difference. The candidate pays to have their commercals put on the news, and the new company makes a profit from advertizing revenue.

Wrong. According to the idiotic logic behind this suit, the minute someone points a camera at a candidate (say, for an impromptu interview while he's golfing), that person's network is giving money to that candidate. That's simply absurd, and you know it.

The only possible argument the Liberarians could make here is that a state facility is discriminating against a legitimately recognized political party.

However, the university isn't making use of public funds for this debate. It's using contributions from private doners. Entirely. Perhaps the Libertarians didn't read ASU's FAQ on the debates. Doners can specify under what conditions their moneys are used.

Furthermore, ASU aren't the ones who organized the debates, the non-partisan, non-profit Commission for Presidential Debates does. They are under no obligation to invite the Libertarians to any debates they host.

[SirNitram]

Here we go again. It's a Presidential Election. What does this mean? Lots of YARL and YADL, even more mudslinging, and of course, because American politics has never really come to terms with it's own existance, the third parties. The past four years, we don't even hear these guys exist. But 2004 comes around and WHAM, out of the woodwork. And it's never logical, it's never useful crap from them. I speaking primarily of the nationwide third parties here. The Greens, the Libs, and so forth. Local scale third parties occasionally have moments of sanity. But they get tarnished by the idiot brigades which everyone hears about.

And this is a prime example. What's the primary reason for their whine? 'Arizona recignizes the Libertarians as a party'? Well, let's throw aside that it's the contributors choice where the money goes(Jeez! You'd think the retard brigade that invented the 'List Of No Rights' would realize that you can choose where your money goes, and that is your right as you earned it!), and we can realize that, whoops, this isn't the Arizona Gubernatorial Elections. It's not the Arizona Senate Elections. No. It's the National Presidential Elections. Which means no one cares that Arizona recignizes this Libertarian. It is not Arizona's choice. I'm not even sure Arizona is a state where the Libs could take the electoral votes. Isn't it firmly Red, not even battleground?

So anyway. Rant over until the next twit from a third party doing something stupid.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ah, I see, so every time a news network broadcasts a candidate on TV, they're giving him a campaign donation.

What a crock of shit.

There is a difference. The candidate pays to have their commercals put on the news, and the new company makes a profit from advertizing revenue.

Wrong. According to the idiotic logic behind this suit, the minute someone points a camera at a candidate (say, for an impromptu interview while he's golfing), that person's network is giving money to that candidate. That's simply absurd, and you know it.

The only possible argument the Liberarians could make here is that a state facility is discriminating against a legitimately recognized political party.

However, the university isn't making use of public funds for this debate. It's using contributions from private doners. Entirely. Perhaps the Libertarians didn't read ASU's FAQ on the debates. Doners can specify under what conditions their moneys are used.

Furthermore, ASU aren't the ones who organized the debates, the non-partisan, non-profit Commission for Presidential Debates does. They are under no obligation to invite the Libertarians to any debates they host.

Have you read the suit? Arizona State University is usings its money as a state run organization, to host this debate, the debate is using its auditorium, and ASU personell on the ASU payroll are being used to plan the event.

The debate proceedure, as it is funded at least in part(because the university did not set up private donors in advance) by the state, it is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Arizona constitution Article 4 section 19 clause 13 "No Local or Special laws shall be enacted in any of the following cases that is to say... 13.. Granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privileges immunities or franchises. Or in other words, a state funded polical debate is not permitted to bar the participation of any party present on the ballot.

Arizona constitution Article 9 section 7 "Neither the state nor any other subdivision of the state shall ever.. make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise to any individual, association, or corporation.

Now, granted, I cant pass total judgement until I view the arguments in the proceeding.

[Rogue 9]

Did Badnarik ask to be included in the debate, or did they just up and sue?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Did Badnarik ask to be included in the debate, or did they just up and sue?

He has been asking fo the entire course of the election.

[Durandal]

Have you read the suit? Arizona State University is usings its money as a state run organization, to host this debate, the debate is using its auditorium, and ASU personell on the ASU payroll are being used to plan the event.

No, it's using money donated from private donors. Have you read the FAQ?

The debate proceedure, as it is funded at least in part(because the university did not set up private donors in advance) by the state, it is in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Not a single cent of that $2 million has been appropriated from tax payer dollars.

Arizona constitution Article 4 section 19 clause 13 "No Local or Special laws shall be enacted in any of the following cases that is to say... 13.. Granting to any corporation, association or individual any special or exclusive privileges immunities or franchises. Or in other words, a state funded polical debate is not permitted to bar the participation of any party present on the ballot.

It's not state funded. Read the FAQ.

Arizona constitution Article 9 section 7 "Neither the state nor any other subdivision of the state shall ever.. make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise to any individual, association, or corporation.

It's not state funded. Read the FAQ.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Even if a single dollar of the university budget is used, it is unconstitutional. even if it is later recovered through private donations, ASU STILL didnt get the money in advance. Still, my judgement is reserved until I review the transcripts of the proceedings. I dont think a laywer would waste the time to file that kind of suit, if he didnt have at least a passable case, so we shall see. A laywer can subpoena records that we cannot.

[Howedar]

Arizona constitution Article 9 section 7 "Neither the state nor any other subdivision of the state shall ever.. make any donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise to any individual, association, or corporation.

It's not state funded. Read the FAQ.

ASU has not and will not release financial information on this, so we have only their word. I do know that some of my friends who work at the auditorium are working during the debate and being paid by the University. Whether or not ASU is just passing the money on, I don't know.

[Durandal]

Even if a single dollar of the university budget is used, it is unconstitutional. even if it is later recovered through private donations, ASU STILL didnt get the money in advance. Still, my judgement is reserved until I review the transcripts of the proceedings. I dont think a laywer would waste the time to file that kind of suit, if he didnt have at least a passable case, so we shall see. A laywer can subpoena records that we cannot.

How much does it cost to host a Presidential Debate and who pays for it?
Is tax money used to fund the debate?
Costs associated with hosting the debate are estimated at about $2 million. ASU will seek donations and corporate sponsorships to cover expenses. No state appropriation of tax dollars has been received to fund the debate.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As Howedar said, ASU wont release their dinancial records, and only a lawyer can Suboena them. Even if the ASU staff is paind while taking part in the administration of the debate, and if they are paid out of ASUs bank accounts, it is illegal. SO we will see if even a single public dollar ends up being spent when the LP attourney gets a hold of the records.

Fact remains, in the RAQ they use the word seek in the FUtURE tense, as in, they have the gotten the money yet. So we shall see.

[SirNitram]

Yes, let's all assume that despite the fact it could put them in real legal trouble(Which they would know), and despite saying they would definately not, that they are going to wildly violate their own word and various laws. Why? It's not like anyone has evidence they're going to do it. But that's the only way the tin foil nutters of the Libs can try and legitimize this session of whining, which comes off about as bad as Nader.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Have you considered tht maybe, just maybe... they arent trying to win, but trying to call media attention to thefact that they are barred from the presidential debates? Any publicity at this stage is good publicity.

[SirNitram]

Have you considered tht maybe, just maybe... they arent trying to win, but trying to call media attention to thefact that they are barred from the presidential debates? Any publicity at this stage is good publicity.

Have you maybe read my post? The publicity of filing a lawsuit based on tin foil hattery like 'They said they'd not do this, and it's against the law, and it'd be easy to nail them if they did.. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE DOING IT OMG!' is not going to be good. Nader gets lots of publicity about now. It has become people viewing him as a silly extremist bought off by the Reps.

But hey. Why let logic get in the way?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Have you considered tht maybe, just maybe... they arent trying to win, but trying to call media attention to thefact that they are barred from the presidential debates? Any publicity at this stage is good publicity.

Have you maybe read my post? The publicity of filing a lawsuit based on tin foil hattery like 'They said they'd not do this, and it's against the law, and it'd be easy to nail them if they did.. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE DOING IT OMG!' is not going to be good. Nader gets lots of publicity about now. It has become people viewing him as a silly extremist bought off by the Reps.

But hey. Why let logic get in the way?

Slightly different, and the outcome depends on the financial record subpoena. Drawing attention to the fact that third party candidates are not being permitted n the presidential debates for partisan reasons, will hopefully get people to notice the probem.

Hell, the CPD is a tax exempt non-partisan group... in name only. It behavves like a bipartison group, and the two are not the same animal.

[SirNitram]

Have you considered tht maybe, just maybe... they arent trying to win, but trying to call media attention to thefact that they are barred from the presidential debates? Any publicity at this stage is good publicity.

Have you maybe read my post? The publicity of filing a lawsuit based on tin foil hattery like 'They said they'd not do this, and it's against the law, and it'd be easy to nail them if they did.. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE DOING IT OMG!' is not going to be good. Nader gets lots of publicity about now. It has become people viewing him as a silly extremist bought off by the Reps.

But hey. Why let logic get in the way?

Slightly different, and the outcome depends on the financial record subpoena. Drawing attention to the fact that third party candidates are not being permitted n the presidential debates for partisan reasons, will hopefully get people to notice the probem.

What partisan reasons? That they are not recignized on a national level, which happens to be where this debate was organized?

Hell, the CPD is a tax exempt non-partisan group... in name only. It behaves like a bipartison group, and the two are not the same animal.

Maybe when the third parties start netting more than single digits in nationwide polls, they'll be considered for this. In the meantime, it's a lawsuit launched with no evidence, just whining. And yes, Nitram has vast contempt for those who launch into the SUE SUE SUE mentality that America seems entirely too caught up in.

In retrospect, I must ask: Does the Lib party propose anything against frivolous lawsuits? You know, ones launched without evidence of wrongdoing, just to get attention and suchlike.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What partisan reasons? That they are not recignized on a national level, which happens to be where this debate was organized?

No, the election may be national, but it is using astate facility, state employees, and depending on what the ASU records say, state funds.

It is a state function,

and it has national significance unless you want to claim that someone who by some miracle takes 271 electoral votes wont become president because he isnt recognized by all the states as a candidate.

Maybe when the third parties start netting more than single digits in nationwide polls, they'll be considered for this.

SO someone's rights depend on how many of them there are now? Jeez, nice to know you have that mentality

In the meantime, it's a lawsuit launched with no evidence, just whining. And yes, Nitram has vast contempt for those who launch into the SUE SUE SUE mentality that America seems entirely too caught up in.

Are they seeking damages? No, and if they are, they seek a direct cost restitution directed at registered libertarians for being forced to support a debate in which they have no say.

They are seeking the ability to enter into a presidential debate being held on state property.

In retrospect, I must ask: Does the Lib party propose anything against frivolous lawsuits? You know, ones launched without evidence of wrongdoing, just to get attention and suchlike.

Dont think so, though they would encourage judges to laugh such things out of the court when the argument started.

And a lawsuit in the common usage of the word is different from seeking an injunction and courtorder.

A suit seeking an injunction and court order is seeking the court to order the redress of a grievance before the fact. A lawsuit seeks redress after the fact. At least in my limited understanding of the court system.