Nader to be Excluded From Debate But on Ballots in Over 40 States?

Nader For President 2004
P.O. Box 18002 - Washington, DC 20036 - http://www.votenader.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For Further Information:
September 23, 2004 Kevin Zeese 202.265.4000

Nader/Camejo Campaign Urges Inclusion of Independent Candidates in Debate
Writes Commission, Bush-Cheney and Kerry-Edwards Campaigns
Campaign Urges Media to Demand Non-Partisan Debates That Include More Voices and More Choices or Be "complicit in a partisan exercise"

Washington, DC: The Independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo today wrote the Commission on Presidential Debates urging that the Commission include them in the debates. A copy of the letter is below.

The letter from Campaign Manager Theresa Amato highlighted two recent polls showing a majority of Americans want Ralph Nader in the debates. It also emphasized the partisan nature of the debate commission, its role as a private corporation, and its efforts to prevent any participation by non-major party candidates, concluding the “Commission is a ruse to hoodwink the voters into thinking that there is some objective arbiter and host of these debates.”

Amato urged the Commission to “be up front about the nature of your Commission, its control by the two parties, its so-called objective criteria, and how it has been designed to exclude anyone outside of the two-party system in the last three presidential election cycles, despite a number of robust third party and Independent candidacies.”

Last month a federal district court in Washington, DC ruled the Federal Election Commission ignored evidence that the Commission on Presidential Debates is a partisan political organization when it considered a complaint filed by Nader with other non-major party candidates and political parties. The court relied on plaintiffs' allegations, namely:

* CPD was founded by the two major parties
* CPD has been co-chaired by the two former DNC and RNC chairmen since its founding in 1987
* Nine of eleven CPD directors are prominent Republicans and Democrats
* No third-party member is a CPD director
* that the CPD's current conduct shows it to be a partisan organization.

The court found persuasive the fact that CPD decided to exclude ALL third-party candidates from entering the 2000 presidential debates as audience members—even if they had tickets and absent any evidence that the third-party candidates would cause any disruption. Hagelin et al v. the Federal Election Commission, Civ. Act. No. 0400731 (August 12, 2004).(PDF of decision)

The media has the power to end this charade by refusing to participate in partisan debates and demanding debates that provide the voters with broader perspectives. For example, on the critical issue of the Iraq War, without Nader in the debate there will be no candidate urging withdrawal from Iraq even though half the American public supports that view,” said Amato. “If the media fails to make demands for open debates then they are complicit in this partisan exercise.”


By Hand Delivery

September 23, 2004

Janet H. Brown
Executive Director
Commission on Presidential Debates
1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW
Suite 445
Washington, DC 20036


Dear Ms. Brown:

Tomorrow you are planning to announce the candidates who will be included in your bipartisan Presidential Debate Commission’s corporate-sponsored debates for this election cycle. Tens of millions of Americans will view and rely on these debates to get information about our presidential election and how the candidates stand on issues that confront the daily lives of the American people.

Therefore you should be up front about the nature of your Commission, its control by the two parties, its so-called objective criteria, and how it has been designed to exclude anyone outside of the two-party system in the last three presidential election cycles, despite a number of robust third party and Independent candidacies. Indeed, the Republican and Democratic Party candidates are so confident that they are the only candidates to be entitled to the privileged forum of the Debate Commission debates, they have already met and worked out their “deal.” They know that your Commission is a ruse to hoodwink the voters into thinking that there is some objective arbiter and host of these debates. The James Baker-Vernon Jordan debates treaty – duly reported in the New York Times and Washington Post and detailed to the level of pen usage and podium height – confirms the preordained outcome of your “objective criteria.”

I am writing on behalf the Nader/Camejo 2004 campaign to request that Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo be included in the presidential and vice presidential debates. Two polls have come out in the past week showing that a majority of Americans want to see third party and Independent candidates, and specifically Ralph Nader, included in the 2004 presidential debates. Mr. Nader and Mr. Camejo are both constitutionally eligible, have ballot access in enough states to receive at least 270 electoral votes, and have sufficient indicators of electoral support, albeit not the 15% average in the five polls you consult to determine indicia of this support.

You may repeat as often as you like that your criteria are “objective and nonpartisan” in whatever press releases you issue, but the fact is that in multiple election cycles the criteria are routinely applied to exclude third parties and Independent candidates. As a consequence, candidates who raise issues distinct from those shared by the pro-war, pro-Patriot act, pro-WTO/NAFTA, pro-corporate duopoly are not likely to enter into your parallel interviews misnamed as debates. Your Commission’s propaganda starts to sound like Anatole France’s quote that “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges” of France. The criteria, your law, in its majestic objectivity keep all the third parties and Independents alike out of all the debates all of the time, making the presidential debates less useful in confronting and solving the problems faced in our country.

The Commission is run by partisans wedded together, the former chairs of the Republican and Democratic Parties. A federal court has now questioned how the bipartisan Federal Elections Commission winks at your bipartisan behavior while still allowing you to continue to claim a safe harbor exception for nonpartisans to host these corporate-funded debates. At what point does a sense of fair play and decency enter into your Commission’s deliberations? The American people deserve more than the same old two parties offered up election cycle after election cycle in the guise of “this is all who count” in electoral politics in the United States.

Though we would prefer that you open up at least one or two of your debates to all of the electorally eligible third party and Independent candidates, Ralph Nader certainly deserves a place in your debates.

Why don’t you surprise the two major parties for once and interrupt their foregone conclusion that takes you for granted?

We think you and your Commission ought to give it some thought.

Sincerely,

Theresa Amato
Campaign Manager
Nader/Camejo 2004

cc: Kerry-Edwards ‘04
Bush-Cheney ‘04
The Green Party
The Libertarian Party
The Constitution Party
The Reform Party
Media