Forwarded via facebook:
It was only a week ago that the Commission on Presidential Debates had ten sponsors for the 2012 debates.
Today, they're down to seven. Phillips Electronics has, as of this morning, pulled their sponsorship.
What does this mean for us?
We're that much closer to seeing and hearing Governor Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Gray on the debate stage this autumn!
I know what you're thinking. "It's entirely too late for the Commission on Presidential Debates to invite Governor Johnson to debate." Fortunately, it takes very little effort to add a podium to a stage. It takes a whole lot of effort, however, to convince a multi-billion dollar corporation that you wield the power to hit them where it hurts worst — their pocketbooks.
Power. That's the key word in this previous sentence. YOU HAVE ALL THE POWER NOW.
Phillips Electronics
BBH New York
YWCA
That's three down, seven to go.
Get to writing those letters, guys! This election cycle, you will CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY. Change it for the better.
Power to the people!!
LIVE FREE,
Crystal Gross
State Director
Georgia for Gary Johnson 2012
Note from Paulie: Under the Commission’s guidelines for debate inclusion, other than the non-objective polling criterion, two additional candidates would qualify: Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green), the only candidates not invited to the CPD debates who are on enough ballots to win the Presidency and are Constitutionally qualified for the office.
82 responses so far ↓
1 Jill Pyeatt // Sep 29, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Whoo-hoo! The good guys win another round!
2 George Phillies // Sep 29, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Is there any indication from their side as to why they actually withdrew?
3 Jon Maxwell // Sep 29, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Also put pressure on The University of Denver to withdraw their location as a host of the first debate on October 3rd until the third parties are allowed to debate.
4 mike // Sep 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Yes george, the ywca has writen an apology letter and agrees the debates are not fair in a country were every one is equal.
5 Mike Lorrey // Sep 29, 2012 at 2:52 pm
How about adding links to those sponsors sites, and email addresses/phone numbers to call? The CoPD’s own phone mail system has a full mailbox and they don’t seem interested in emptying it.
6 paulie // Sep 29, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Via John Elkins and MHW
Southwest Airlines
Here is the mailing address:
Southwest Airlines
P.O. Box 36647-1CR
Dallas, Texas 75235
Crowell & Moring LLP
At Crowell – Moring LLC, the Chairman is Kent A. Gardiner and his email is
kgardiner@crowell.com
Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Sheldon S. Cohen has an email at:
sheldon@berkowitz-cohen.com
The Howard G. Buffet Foundation
http://www.thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/media/media-relations
Anheuser-Busch Companies
http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/contactus/ab/contact_us.asp
International Bottled Water Association (IBWA)
http://www.bottledwater.org/contact
7 paulie // Sep 29, 2012 at 3:01 pm
kovler@heartlandalliance.org, 773-381-4070
8 Jill Pyeatt // Sep 29, 2012 at 3:05 pm
I’ve been so busy last week that I haven’t written any letters. I’ll write a bunch of them tonight.
9 paulie // Sep 29, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Anheuser-Busch Companies
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
One Busch Place
St. Louis, MO 63118
800-342-5283
E-mail Contact Form: http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/Contactus/email.asp
The Howard G. Buffet Foundation
158 W Prairie Ave, Suite 107
Decatur, IL 62523-1442
Also:
121 S 51st St
Omaha, NE 68132
402-556-6641
Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Farr, Miller & Washington
1020 19th Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
800-390-3277
202-530-5600
202-530-5508 Fax
Email: sscohen@farrmiller.com
International Bottled Water Association
1700 Diagonal Road
Suite 650
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-683-5213
703-683-4074 Fax
Email: ibwainfo@bottledwater.org
800-WATER-11 (Information Hotline)
http://bottledwater.org
The Kovler Fund
aka Marjorie Kovler Research Fellowship
c/o John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum
Columbia Point
Boston, MA 02125
617-514-1624
617-514-1625 Fax
Email: kennedy.library@nara.gov
10 paulie // Sep 29, 2012 at 3:14 pm
https://www.facebook.com/groups/134467393362882/
Help the Commission on Presidential Debates do its job
11 paulie // Sep 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm
From that facebook group
Rick Stewart
OK warriors – another very short email to write today. But first a recap:
Monday – BBH dropped out – ONE DOWN !
Wednesday – YWCA dropped out – TWO DOWN !!
Friday – Philips Electronics dropped out – THREE DOWN !!!
That leaves only 7 sponsors of the original 10. Let’s get another one!
We know Southwest Airlines’ senior management is aware of the issue. They have replied to at least one ‘complaint’ with the following nonsense:
———————————————————————————
It is disheartening to learn that you have come to question your future patronage with Southwest Airlines after learning of our sponsorship with the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) during the upcoming election cycle.
Southwest Airlines’ involvement with the upcoming Presidential debates is not aimed at promoting or endorsing any political agenda or candidate. Essentially, our sponsorship consists of us chartering planes between the debates to accommodate the debate staff’s travel needs. Our sponsorship does not include travel for any of the candidates or their staff.
After careful review of the CPD’s request for Southwest Airlines involvement in the upcoming debates, our Senior Leaders felt that the core values of Southwest Airlines aligned with the CPD’s mission of providing American Citizens the opportunity to make informed decisions. We hope that the information provided will clarify some of the questions you had regarding our sponsorship with the CPD. We would LUV to call you one of our patrons and Southwest friends should your plans call for travel between the cities we serve.
—————————————————————————–
PAY ATTENTION WARRIORS! You are writing a Letter to the Editor of the Dallas Morning News, the major daily newspaper in Southwest’s home city of Dallas. Southwest executives are receiving a COPY of your letter to the editor. Blind copies are being sent to three additional Texas newspapers in cities served by Southwest.
====================================================
To: letters@dallasnews.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com
cc: gary.kelly@wnco.com, jeff.lamb@wnco.com, ron.ricks@wnco.com, dave.ridley@wnco.com, kevin.krone@wnco.com, linda.rutherford@wnco.com, ellen.torbert@wnco.com
bcc: letters@statesman.com, viewpoints@chron.com, letters@express-news.net
Subject: Why is Southwest Airlines telling me to vote for Romney or Obama?
To the editor: [Use your own words! 200 or less is best. It will be published on line.]
Southwest Airlines is trying to tell me I can only vote for a Republican or a Democrat for President. By sponsoring the Commission on Presidential Debates, a corrupt group of professional Republican and Democratic functionaries in Washington, Southwest is preventing me and two hundred million other American voters from seeing our third and fourth and fifth alternatives for president, all of whom will be on the ballot in November.
I do not like Southwest telling me I only have two choices. I do not like it when the ‘core values’ of Southwest prevent me from learning who my actual choices are, because then I cannot make an ‘informed decision.’
Southwest should stay out of politics. Southwest should quit trying to tell me who I have to vote for. I no longer LUV Southwest, I despise them, because they are actively helping the Commission on Presidential Debates subvert American democracy.
Sincerely,
[Your real name]
[Your real city and state]
[Your real phone number]
====================================================
NOTES: Your letter will be published on line. If you would like to have it published in the print edition of the newspaper (maybe, if it is chosen) you can also fill out the on-line form. It will need to be 200 words or less.
12 Third Sponsor Pulls Out of Commission on Presidential Debates · Hammer of Truth // Sep 29, 2012 at 3:38 pm
[...] qualified for the office.Some unverified contact info for debate sponsors in the comments here.SHOVED UP…MorePrintEmail Pin ItDiggShare on TumblrSlashdotFark posted 5 seconds ago by paulie [...]
13 George Whitfield // Sep 29, 2012 at 3:54 pm
I wrote to Phillips twice and I wrote to Southwest once. Now I will focus on the others on the list.
14 gary johnson appreciation thread - Page 19 - Grasscity.com Forums // Sep 29, 2012 at 4:13 pm
[...] gary johnson appreciation thread Third Sponsor Pulls Out of Commission on Presidential Debates | Independent Political Report [...]
15 DSZ // Sep 29, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I don’t really like the combative tone of the form email to Southwest. Just as research shows that dieting/rules on what not to eat is not nearly as effective for weight loss as adding things to one’s diet (fruit/vegetables etc), I think it looks less grouchy and more cooperative to ask Southwest to exert pressure to ADD Gary Johnson and/or Jill Stein to the debates, or make a withdrawal conditioned on the exclusion of non-duopolists. It’s more effective to make the point that GJ would make, and historically would have made, the lives of small competitors like Southwest a lot easier against government-supported major airlines. The plight of Southwest is comparable to the plight of minor parties to some extent.
16 DSZ // Sep 29, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Also I think maybe its important to note that while Stein and Johnson are constitutionally eligible to become president, in 2008 the debates included a candidate who wasn’t, John McCain. By the letter of the law he was not a “natural born” U.S. citizen and no court ever ruled that he was.
17 Contacting Sponsors Works: Third Sponsor Pulls Out of Commission on Presidential Debates! | Green Party Watch // Sep 29, 2012 at 6:04 pm
[...] var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); IPR, from Crystal Gross on Facebook: This is getting serious. It was only a week ago that the [...]
18 NewFederalist // Sep 29, 2012 at 6:35 pm
@16… please no more “birther” nonsense. His Daddy was on official orders to the Canal Zone and his Mommy was a US citizen. Yes he was NOT born in the Canal Zone AND his first official birth certificate is in Spanish. None of that matters. Geez!
19 From Der Sidelines // Sep 29, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Sorry, NF, but that was researched and conclusively proven in 2008. DSZ is right, per the law. It’s not “birther” stuff–its’ the cold hard truth.
Of course, if you want to be an apologist for Panama John here, be our guest. You won’t get much sympathy shilling for that POS.
20 NewFederalist // Sep 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm
I dislike McCain immensely. Both parents US citizens. Father on official orders from US Navy. No appropriate medical facilities in Canal Zone dispensary for OB/GYN. Try again.
21 Jon Roland // Sep 29, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Constitutional eligibility is not “birther nonsense”. “Natural born” means born on U.S. soil, no matter the nationality of the parents. Whether someone born on U.S. soil is a citizen depends on his parents not being foreign diplomats or invaders. If they are not, then he is also a natural born citizen.
U.S. soil means incorporated U.S. territory, not protectorates like Puerto Rico or leaseholds like the Panama Canal Zone.
Note that “natural born” is not synonymous with “citizen at birth”. People are often naturalized by statute to be citizens from birth, but that is naturalization, not natural birth.
So McCain is definitely not eligible and Obama must be presumed not to be since the only evidence of his birth is an obvious forgery.
Click on the link on my name for an article that explores the subject in some depth.
22 Steve M // Sep 29, 2012 at 7:25 pm
I sent an email off to PBS The News Hour suggesting that Jim Lehrer being the moderator of the first debate was as the League of Woman Voters who pulled their sponsorship from the 1988 debates because they refused to be accessories to pulling an electoral fraud on the American people. That by participating in this years debates Jim Lehrer is damaging his and PBS reputations by being an accessory to fraud.
23 Steve M // Sep 29, 2012 at 7:25 pm
this birther nonsense is off topic!
24 Steve M // Sep 29, 2012 at 7:34 pm
you have to love it when a politicians slogans comes back and bites them.
e.g. “Change” versus “More of the Same”
25 Steve M // Sep 29, 2012 at 7:39 pm
if you want to go through the PBS website to comment on Jim Lehrer participation as a moderator in these rigged debates you can use this link http://www.pbs.org/newshour/letters.html
26 paulie // Sep 29, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Jeff Becker @ BAN comments
Letters to the editor of newspapers in the cities where these sponsors are headquartered would probably be most effective. Dallas (Southwest Airlines), St. Louis (Anheuser-Busch), Omaha (Howard G. Buffet Foundation), Washington, DC (Sheldon S. Cohen, etc.), Alexandria, VA (International Bottled Water Association), Boston (Kovler Fund), and DC, NYC and LA (Crowell & Moring).
http://www.newslink.org/news.html
27 From Der Sidelines // Sep 29, 2012 at 8:16 pm
NF @20:
1. The 14th Amendment and matching policy limit citizenship to either natural born or naturalized, but not both.
2. John McCain was born in 1936 in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
3. 8 USC 1403(a) declares naturalized citizenship in 1952 on persons born in the Canal Zone to citizen parents.
4. Therefore, 8 USC 1403(a) applies to John McCain at age 16.
5. Therefore, John McCain is a naturalized citizen.
6. By treaty, the Canal Zone was not part of the United States.
7. Therefore, John McCain was not born in the United States.
8. Therefore, John McCain is a citizen not born in the United States.
9. Therefore, John McCain is not a natural born citizen.
10. Article II of the Constitution states to be President a person must be a natural born citizen.
11. THEREFORE, John McCain is not eligible to be President of the United States under Article II of the Constitution.
That’s the synopsis, and it’s all cited.
28 Steve M // Sep 29, 2012 at 8:38 pm
President Jimmy Charter is an Honorary Co-Chair. you can protest to carterweb@emory.edu
29 Mark Axinn // Sep 29, 2012 at 8:53 pm
@27.
Who the fuck cares anything about McCain and what does his birthplace have to do with the statist debates commission refusal to include LP or GP candidates?
For that matter, what does birther nonsense have to do with this website and why are you bothering us with it?
30 Brian Miller // Sep 29, 2012 at 9:22 pm
?“Natural born” means born on U.S. soil,?
No it does not. It means “citizen at birth.”
One is a US citizen by virtue of being born to at least one US parent who is a US citizen, being born on US soil, or being naturalized after birth.
The “natural born” condition for president simply excludes naturalized citizens from the presidency. Since McCain and Obama both have a US citizen parent as of the time of their births, they are natural born.
No more birther insanity, please.
31 George Phillies // Sep 29, 2012 at 10:35 pm
@30 You are absolutely right.
32 Jon Roland // Sep 29, 2012 at 11:04 pm
“Natural born” absolutely does not mean “citizen at birth”. That is a myth that has no basis whatsoever in Anglo-American law. This is not some casual lay opinion. The correct meaning is well-established in such authorities as Coke, Blackstone, and several court cases, all documented in the article linked from my name. Read it, or admit to stubborn ignorance or willful deception.
33 Oranje Mike // Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 am
This is fantastic news. People are doing a fantastic job.
34 a b // Sep 30, 2012 at 12:48 am
I agree with above comments regarding the tone. Here is what I sent to southwest:
Hello, I am writing regarding your sponsorship of the Presidential debates. I am disappointed in the CPD’s decision to not include Libertarian Gary Johnson in the debate. Gary polls about the same as Ross Perot prior to Perot being invited to the debates, and meets all of the other objective criteria.
I am pleased to see that three of the original 10 sponsors have dropped their sponsorship of the debates, and would like to encourage Southwest to do their best to convince CPD to include Gary Johnson, who will bring a much needed viewpoint. If CPD continues to exclude Johnson then I think the honorable thing for Southwest to do would be to follow the lead of Phillips Electronics, BBH, and the YWCA and drop their sponsorship.
After all, Southwest is the scrappy young airline underdog who has become a huge success despite the roadblocks placed in it’s way by Texas government. You should stand with the underdog Johnson and insist that he able to present his perspective at the debate. After all, it’s not really about who is viable, but what the best ideas are.
I have been a southwest customer since about 1988, when I used to fly standby as a student from Love to Hobby for about $20. Today for business I’m often required to fly other airlines but SW is my preference when I have a choice. I would feel much more comfortable continuing to fly SW in the future if SW would take a public stand favoring inclusion in the presidential debates.
35 Robert Capozzi // Sep 30, 2012 at 5:22 am
McCain’s status is moot. McCain’s status in the past is moot. Had he been elected, the issue might have been interesting, but since he was the nominee of a party that regularly elects people to office and since he had more than 40% support in that timeframe, and since the Commission is not a court of law, this birther discussion is one massive distraction.
If Birthers think that Obama is also not eligible per the Constitution to be prez, they have to prove it in the appropriate venue. That hasn’t happened. Obama is prez. He’s running for re-election. According to the polls, he’s likely to win.
Making the case that the Commission should exclude Obama from the upcoming debates is crazy talk. That’s not the Commission’s job.
Table the crazy talk, even if the “crazy talk” has merit.
36 paulie // Sep 30, 2012 at 6:53 am
a b,
Good letter!
37 David Blau // Sep 30, 2012 at 10:19 am
Keep up the good work, everyone! Get Gary in the debates!
38 Zapper // Sep 30, 2012 at 10:31 am
As an observation: If the Romney campaign had anyone with brains and not suffering from total self-delusion in charge, they would insist on inviting Johnson and Stein to the debates.
As things stand today, and as they have been since 2008, Romney has essentially zero chance of winning. By adding Johnson and Stein to the mix, they could finally get their “Etch-a-Sketch” moment. With Stein and Johnson drawing votes from both Obama and Romney, there would be a chance that the new division of voters would allow Romney to pick up a few Obama states and have a shot at an Electoral College victory. It’s a long shot, but for Romney it may be his only shot.
39 Zapper // Sep 30, 2012 at 10:33 am
The downside risk for Romney, however, is that by allowing Johnson in the POTUS debates and Judge Gray in the VP debate, Romney could very well finish third.
40 paulie // Sep 30, 2012 at 11:01 am
What if a lot of different people filed their own version of this?
http://cpdcomplaint.wordpress.com/
41 paulie // Sep 30, 2012 at 11:03 am
If no candidate wins an outright electoral college majority it goes to the House, which probably means Romney wins.
The bigger risk for Romney and the Republicans is that it could establish the LP as a long term, much larger thorn in their sides – if not quite a major party, certainly a significantly larger one than now.
42 paulie // Sep 30, 2012 at 11:05 am
Yeah, abrasive is probably not the best way to go.
Thanking the former sponsors who withdrew their support of CPD could also go a long way.
43 Zapper // Sep 30, 2012 at 11:48 am
@41 Romney finishing third does not preclude Obama winning outright in the EC. In fact, it makes it probable that Obama would go over 400 in the EC.
44 paulie // Sep 30, 2012 at 11:54 am
Maybe Obama would benefit from a one on one debate with Johnson? LOL
45 3rd CPD sponsor withdraws support | Veritaze // Sep 30, 2012 at 1:56 pm
[...] Political Report is reporting that a third sponsor is withdrawing their support for the mysterious Commission on Preside… CPD is the gatekeeper for the mainstream media presidential debates and defines who can debate and [...]
46 Bobert Gilnes 2016! // Sep 30, 2012 at 2:04 pm
I hope that Barbara Dale Washer is also allowed to debate.
47 Robert Capozzi // Sep 30, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Z, why compound your speculations? Romney isn’t going to do so, and EVEN IF he did, do you REALLY believe that in 4 weeks, millions of voters would give up a lifetime of voting R (in this case) to vote GJ? Romney comes in second with or without GJ and/or Stein in the race.
Now, if GJ was as articulate as Gingrich and as charismatic as Obama, I might consider your fantasy a possibility. GJ doesn’t have those sorts of skills, though. He has pretty good skills, but he’s no magician.
48 Robert Capozzi // Sep 30, 2012 at 3:07 pm
make “race” > “debates”
49 maureen stipe // Sep 30, 2012 at 7:43 pm
I want to see Gary give them hell on tv. He is a fine man and he is capable to run this country. Hope to see you on tv and also Jim. Judge you made great points with me when you came to Westlake Ohio
50 Jimmy Steiner // Sep 30, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Merlin Miller should be in the debate to represent the White working class.
Obama is the candidate of the non-White races and Romney speaks only for the millionaires and billionaires.
Both are owned lock, stock and barrel by Israel and the Zionists.
Blue collar White people are being shut out even though, we are still the majority in this country, but with the invasion of the illegals and the non-White birth rate, for how much longer?
51 DSZ // Sep 30, 2012 at 9:29 pm
While we’re at it let’s just be fair and boot all non-natives altogether. I’ve already got my ticket punched for the Susan Constant, everybody else better find space on whatever replicas of the Mayflower, Sea Venture etc. that they can find to take them back to Europe. At least we’ll be following a consistent principle.
52 Zapper // Sep 30, 2012 at 11:48 pm
@47 There is a three way split in the way the overwhelming majority of the electorate is registered: D, R and I – Independent.
Yes, the hardcore R voters would mostly stay with Romney and the yellow-dog Ds will stick to Obama. But, Gary Johnson is polling in the neighborhood of 6% nationwide, with several states much higher. Yet, fewer than 1/3 of the electorate has heard his name at all.
If included in the debates, the Johnson/Gray ticket becomes a wild card. Both Johnson and Gray have the ability to make a surprisingly good showing and to appeal to the I’s in a debate. They would also draw some Ds and Rs. Raising their profile would drastically increase their vote totals.
What is unknown is who would lose the most from such a swing – Obama or Romney – or if it would be fairly even (especially including Stein).
Since the race is fairly close – within 10% or less in numerous states – Johnson wouldn’t have to pull a large number to swing those states in another direction.
So, since Romney currently has no chance in hell of winning, mixing up the race is his only real hope.
The upside risk for Romney is that Johnson (and Stein) draw more from Obama. This allows Romney to pick up some states where he currently has little chance of winning.
The downside risk is that Johnson picks up more from Romney and puts the election even further out of reach.
However, the likelyhood of this gambit working for Romney is small. Chances are Obama still wins. It does improve Romney’s chances from zero up to about 2%.
However, Johnson would have a better chance, perhaps 5%, of catching on enough to swing large numbers of Independents away – forget the locked in Rs – and leaving Romney in third place. As an example, within the Perot type experience: Obama 39%, Johnson 30%, Romney 29%, Stein and others 2% – and the overwhelming majority of Ds and Rs can remain unchanged.
Yes, the credibility from being in the debates – and on network broadcast TV – makes the overwhelming difference in the minds of voters in the US.
Remember that Perot was able to swing a large number of the electorate in a short period of time – and he was an obvious wacko.
Johnson is a reasonable, qualified, personable, successful two-term governor.
Of course, we missed the chance for leveraged media – it doesn’t cost much to start, but it must begin early in targeted small states on major network TV. That could have done it.
So, now, the only chance remaining for a real breakthrough for Johnson and the LP is a debate appearance.
Ironically, getting Johnson and Stein into the debates is Romney’s only chance as well.
Of course the chances of being included are nearly zero as well – the Romney team is too dense to find their own behinds, and the Obama team is smart enough to figure out a way to refuse.
53 Robert Capozzi // Oct 1, 2012 at 5:48 am
Z, where I find your analysis turns into sci fi is the Perot analogy. IIRC, Perot 92 was building all summer, and he was doing very well in the national polls coming into the fall debate season.
I didn’t see Perot as an “obvious wacko” in that timeframe, and I didn’t see that as the prevailing opinion, either. (He is a wacko, but then, as Jim Morrison told us, “all the children are insane.”
)
If GJ magically got in the debates after polling not at all or largely in the low single digits, I’m not sure he could sway people the first time they saw him. Chance Gardener could, but generally people need to see someone a few times to get comfortable with them.
GJ is a good candidate and reasonably good pol. He sets a great tone for the LP. I’m hoping he does better than expected, and that he considers running in 2016. This time, he didn’t have the dollars to approach breakthrough velocity. With 4 years preparation, perhaps he will.
54 paulie // Oct 1, 2012 at 6:26 am
Ken Lawson via facebook:
Gary Johnson Activists Lead the Charge Against the CPD
http://www.policymic.com/articles/15578/gary-johnson-activists-lead-the-charge-against-the-cpd-and-that-is-awesome
Philips pulls presidential debate sponsorship
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/philips-pulls-presidential-debate-sponsorship-137053.html
Third Sponsor Pulls Out of Commission on Presidential Debates
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/third-sponsor-pulls-out-of-commission-on-presidential-debates/
Gary Johnson Files Anti Trust Claim Against the CPD
http://www.policymic.com/articles/15188/ron-paul-supporters-will-appreciate-gary-johnson-files-anti-trust-claim-against-the-cpd-in-the-name-of-liberty
Why the CPD Decision to Keep Gary Johnson Out of the Debates is Illegal
http://www.policymic.com/articles/15380/gary-johnson-polls-why-the-cpd-decision-to-keep-him-out-of-the-debates-is-illegal
Judge Jim Gray on Anti-Trust Presidential Debates Lawsuit
Contact the Sponsors of the Presidential Debates
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
One Busch Place
St. Louis, MO 63118
800-342-5283
Investor.Relations@ab-inbev.com
E-mail Contact Form: http://contactus.anheuser-busch.com/Contactus/email.asp
http://www.facebook.com/AnheuserBusch
International Bottled Water Association
1700 Diagonal Road
Suite 650
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-683-5213
703-683-4074 Fax
800-WATER-11 (Information Hotline)
Email: ibwainfo@bottledwater.org
info@bottledwatermatters.org
media@bottledwatermatters.org
http://bottledwater.org/
http://www.facebook.com/bottledwatermatters
SOUTHWEST
http://www.southwest.com/contact-us/contact-us.html
http://www.facebook.com/Southwest
http://www.facebook.com/pages/YWCA-USA/127821707877
Crowell & Moring LLP
At Crowell – Moring LLC, the Chairman is Kent A. Gardiner and his email is
kgardiner@crowell.com
The Howard G. Buffet Foundation
158 W Prairie Ave, Suite 107
Decatur, IL 62523-1442
Also:
121 S 51st St
Omaha, NE 68132
402-556-6641
http://www.thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/media/media-relations
Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq.
Farr, Miller & Washington
1020 19th Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
800-390-3277
202-530-5600
202-530-5508 Fax
Email: sscohen@farrmiller.com
The Kovler Fund
aka Marjorie Kovler Research Fellowship
c/o John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum
Columbia Point
Boston, MA 02125
617-514-1624
617-514-1625 Fax
Email: kennedy.library@nara.gov
Contact the CPD (Commission on Presidential Debates)
CPD
comments@debates.org,
Janet Brown, Executive Director
phone – 202-872-1020
email – jb@debates.org,
CPD Board
email – president@nd.edu,
email – nminow@sidley.com,
email – ahernandez@calfund.org,
CPD Staff
email – robin@debates.org,
email – nancy@debates.org,
email – jennifer@debates.org,
Join the Debates (CPD outreach to teens)
https://www.facebook.com/jointhedebates
Contact the Polls
Rasmussen: 732-776-9777 info@rasmussenreports.com
The Gallup Organization – 609-924-9600, 202-715-3100
http://www.gallup.com/contactUs/default.aspx
The Pew Research Center – 202-419-4300, 202-419-4350 info@pewresearch.org
Quinnipiac: 203-582-5201
CNN: 404.827.1500
Mason-Dixon: 202-548-2680
Marquette: 414-288-7445 or 608-263-2022
Survey USA: 800-786-8000
Zogby International – (315) 624-0200
http://interactive.zogby.com/contact/
Contact the News Media
ABC News – (212) 456-7777 newspolls@abc.com
AP-Ipsos – (202) 463-7300 info@ipsos-na.com
CBS News – (212) 975-5554
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml?tag=ftr
FOX News – (212) 301-3057 foxnewstips@foxnews.com
Los Angeles Times – (213) 237-5000 readers.representative@latimes.com
NBC News – (202) 885-4548 mediainquiries@msnbc.com
NPR – (202) 513-2300 http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx
The New York Times – (212) 556-1234 nytnews@nytimes.com
The Wall Street Journal – (202) 862-9237 support@wsj.com
The Washington Post – (202) 334-7582
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/marcus+brauchli/
Time – (866) 550-6934 https://secure.customersvc.com/wes/servlet/Show?WESPAGE=am%2FServices%2Fwes_email.jsp&MSRSMAG=TD
National Media Contact List
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111
Look Up Local Media Contacts
http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/
Contact Senators and Representatives and other Officials
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Sign Online Petitions To Open The Debates
Petition to Include Libertarian Two-Term Governor Gary Johnson in Presidential Debates with Mitt Romney and Barack Obama
http://www.libertarianpetition.com/
American voters: Allow Gary Johnson (and Jill Stein) to be part of the Presidential debates
http://www.change.org/petitions/american-voters-allow-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-to-be-part-of-the-presidential-debates#
Open up the 2012 Presidential Debates!
http://www.change.org/petitions/open-up-the-2012-presidential-debates
Commission on Presidential Debates: Allow Gary Johnson and Jim Gray to participate in the Presidential debates.
http://www.change.org/petitions/commission-on-presidential-debates-allow-gary-johnson-and-jim-gray-to-participate-in-the-presidential-debates#
Commission on Presidential Debates: Admit presidential candidates that qualify in 45 states to the debates
http://www.change.org/petitions/commission-on-presidential-debates-admit-presidential-candidates-that-qualify-in-45-states-to-the-debates
We want to see all Presidential Candidates on the 2012 Debate Stage this Fall who qualify on enough ballots to win the Presidential Election!
http://www.causes.com/actions/1682103
Open the 2012 Presidential Debates to Third-Party Candidates
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/debates-jsn
Open the Debates
http://signon.org/sign/open-the-debates
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: request the Commission on Presidential Debates invite viable third party candidates to the presidential debates.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/request-commission-presidential-debates-invite-viable-third-party-candidates-presidential-debates/2wS2kDhJ
Presidential Debate Information
HELP the Commission on Presidential Debates
http://www.debates.ws/
Help the CPD survey results
http://www.debates.ws/PieChart.html#.UFfK8Y2wvnh
Open Debates
http://opendebates.org/theissue/
CPD Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates
Commission on Presidential Debates
http://www.debates.org/
Grassroots Online Groups
Gary Johnson Twitter Army
https://www.facebook.com/GaryJohnsonTwitterArmy
Help the Commission on Presidential Debates do its job
https://www.facebook.com/groups/134467393362882/
Gary Johnson Libertarian Grassroots Resource Page
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gary-Johnson-Libertarian-Grassroots-Resource-Page/460757873965142
55 Zapper // Oct 1, 2012 at 8:57 am
@53 Perot came out of nowhere, about as obscure as Johnson, prior to his announcement of his thinking of running for POTUS. He started getting attention and moving up in the polls earlier in the season – which is why he ended up leading in the polls during the summer – and then proved that he was a wacko by dropping out of the race and then dropping back in and caused him to lose an election that had been in the bag prior to his self-revealed mental instability.
The point, though, is that his rise in the polls was quick, sudden and dramatic. He got media attention by virtue of his announced plan to spend tens of millions of dollars of his own money on the campaign. Johnson would have to gain the same sort of publicity from the media attention surrounding a debate inclusion. Being in the debates would multiply his name recognition 3 or 4 fold, resulting in climbing polling numbers and increased media attention generating another cycle of interest, recognition and polling gains, plus the resulting increase in fundraising and advertising generating still another cycle of gains. But only a sudden and continuing outpouring of public pressure on the networks, the debate commission and the sponsors will have a chance of causing the duopoly to open up to inclusive debates.
Then, as now, a purality of the American public is dissatisfied and looking for an alternative – and as Johnson has pointed out, at least a plurality, if not a majority is fiscally responsible and socially accepting . If they heard of Johnson and if Johnson was treated fairly and equally by the media – even starting now – the public would be receptive and Johnson could actually be elected. And Johnson has an advantage over Perot in coming across as well reasoned, soft spoken, modest and sane.
As to Perot being a wacko, I felt from the early days, even prior to his climb in the polls, that he was nutty. Yes, Perot made a lot of good points on spending, deficits and balancing the budget, but he was obviously prone to rash and irrational mental swings.
Whenever Perot mentioned that “the deficit is like the crazy old aunt locked in the attic that no one ever talks about,” it seemed to me that her equally looney husband was running for President.
56 paulie // Oct 1, 2012 at 9:06 am
Perot was at 40% before dropping out and only 7% when he dropped back in.
He ended up with 19%.
In addition to the large amount of personal money he spent, he also got massive media attention for several months.
Even Ventura, who also started with 7% in the polls and won with 37%, had several months to make the climb.
57 NewFederalist // Oct 1, 2012 at 9:07 am
You didn’t like his “voodoo stick” pointer?
58 Let Gary Debate! | www.mikolay.org // Oct 1, 2012 at 9:10 am
[...] Johnson still hasn’t been invited to Wednesday’s debate. Time is rapidly running out, and even after three sponsors rescinded their financing in protest of Johnson’s exclusion, the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates is trying to pretend as though the former [...]
59 Dan // Oct 1, 2012 at 9:24 am
@ 32
“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would
mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born
“in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born
abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for
U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S.
citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal
process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
enough with the birther BS…it’s one of those conspiracy theories that, when spouted by independents, makes all independents and independent parties look like fringe wackos.
You want a real conspiracy? The subject of this thread – the presidential debates – are your huckleberry. Drop the birther nonsense and start writing letters!
60 paulie // Oct 1, 2012 at 9:30 am
Also, if anyone wants to share their letters here, that would be good as well.
BTW, I have seen it mentioned elsewhere that each of the separate debates has additional sponsors for that debate only.
Anyone have a list?
61 Robert Capozzi // Oct 1, 2012 at 10:03 am
Z, right. Perot’s upward surge was fairly fast, but wasn’t in October. If Romney magically adopted the Zapper Debate Tactic tomorrow, GJ magically got in the debates, yes, that’d be likely helpful for GJ’s results.
Besting Romney in Nov., however, happens only within a crack-pipe fantasy. Such grandiose thinking is counterproctive to the cause of liberty, since it sets absurd expectations, leading to inevitable dissapointment.
62 ellen // Oct 1, 2012 at 10:28 am
Re: “Note that “natural born” is not synonymous with “citizen at birth”. People are often naturalized by statute to be citizens from birth, but that is naturalization, not natural birth.”
Actually, it IS synonymous with “citizen at birth.”
As the Wall Street Journal put it: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)
As Ronald Reagan’s attorney general put it in his book:
““Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
An as the US Supreme Court recognized in the Wong Kim Ark decision (which BTW was AFTER Minor v Happersett and hence had the power to overturn it). The US Supreme Court ruled six to two (one not voting) in the Wong Kim Ark decision, that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth (hence not the parents of a US-born citizen) and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
63 Resources for Contacting the Commission on Presidential Debates, Sponsors, etc. | Independent Political Report // Oct 1, 2012 at 10:40 am
[...] Comments NewFederalist on October 2012 Open Threadellen on Third Sponsor Pulls Out of Commission on Presidential Debatespaulie on October 2012 Open ThreadNewFederalist on October 2012 Open ThreadRobert Capozzi on Third [...]
64 Waldorf Trevant Fishburg // Oct 1, 2012 at 11:00 am
We should adhere to a non-interventionist policy in the controversies surrounding the besotten land of Birfur and its inhabitants. The less responses they get, the more people can concentrate on the topic of persuading sponsors, moderators, debate venues, and journalistic organizations to withdraw support/participation in the CPD sham debates.
65 Jill Pyeatt // Oct 1, 2012 at 11:06 am
Here’s the basic letter I sent:
For the past year, I have been working to support a peaceful candidate for President. I believe that all other issues in this country are moot if we get into World War III, which is a definite possibility given the rumblings of Israel and Iran. The only person running for President who I believe can keep that from happening is Gary Johnson. The Libertarian Party has worked hard to acquire ballot access in almost all 50 states, and I believe Johnson might have a chance if the American public can hear what he has to say.
This brings me to the reason for my letter. I understand you are a sponsor of the debates which only include 2 of the presidential candidates. I believe that is tremendously unfair, as both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson will be on enough ballots to theoretically win enough electoral votes to win. I feel strongly enough about their exclusion in the debates that I will cease using your products if you do sponsor the exclusionary debates. If you continue your support, as I recognize you have the right to do, I will choose to exercise my right to buy another company’s products besides yours.
Thank you for your consideration of this extremely urgent matter.
Jill Pyeatt
Libertarian Party of CA
Chairwoman -Pasadena-Glendale Region
Monrovia, CA
626-375-0947
66 IPR: Resources for Contacting the Commission on Presidential Debates, Sponsors, etc. | Green Party Watch // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:20 pm
[...] s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })(); Recently, I wrote about the third of what were originally ten sponsors pulling out of the CPD presidential debates which hav…. If the CPD removed the non-objective polling criterion for debate inclusion, leaving in place the [...]
67 Dave // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:22 pm
International Bottled Water Association says on their facebook page. –>
“A trio of new studies strengthen the link between sugary drinks and obesity. Zero calorie bottled water is the best choice when you’re on the go or at the store and want a cool, refreshing drink.”
My response:
I agree, sugar consumption is a major problem in our country. Another problem is fairness in politics. This is your chance to try and make America better in a whole different way!
BTW, I’d like to enjoy a cold, fresh bottle of water while watching independent voices speak their minds along with the two major parties at the upcoming debates.
Please pressure the CPD to included alternative voices, and if they do not comply, please pull your sponsorship from the debates.
I could always buy a water filter. As it stands now, I have 6 cold bottles of water in my fridge!
Dave
68 Dave // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm
To those who say that we shouldn’t raise our expectatations: Anybody whose been involved in business knows you set the bar VERY high, so that you assume anything less if failure.
This type of mentality translates into extraordinary success.
Regardless, keep pressuring those sponsors people! It’s the least you can do!
69 IPR: Resources for Contacting the Commission on Presidential Debates, Sponsors, etc. · Hammer of Truth // Oct 1, 2012 at 12:53 pm
[...] for Contacting the Commission on Presidential Debates, Sponsors, etc.Recently, I wrote about the third of what were originally ten sponsors pulling out of the CPD presidential debates which hav…. If the CPD removed the non-objective polling criterion for debate inclusion, leaving in place the [...]
70 paulie // Oct 1, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Jason Melehani jasonmelehani@garyjohnson2012.com
1:34 PM (2 minutes ago)
to bcc: me
Hey Everyone,
This Rapid Response Team currently has 16 states signed up, hopefully we can bring the other 34 on board too.
Included in this email are instructions for contacting InBev, the parent company of Anheuser-Busch.
Also, today, USNews and World Report ran an article detailing our success thus far: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/10/01/two-sponsors-pull-out-from-debates-over-exclusion-of-gary-johnson-
I will be posting the message below on the NC facebook pages, hope you will post on your page too.
If you are interested in getting help from other states to support debate access for your local candidates, please send me an email similar to what Rick does and we can get this distributed.
Thanks
Jason Melehani
————————————–
Please write and send a similar email today to AB InBev (the Belgian owners of Anheuser-Busch).
Belgium is seven hours ahead of us so please do this as early as possible today (but do it for sure). The first set of addresses is the Belgian media team.
————————————————–
To: Media.Relations@ab-inbev.com, cc: marianne.amssoms@ab-inbev.com, karen.couck@ab-inbev.com, laura.vallis@ab-inbev.com
cc: washington@diplobel.fed.be [this is Belgium's embassy in Washington]
Subject: It is inappropriate for AB InBev to be ‘sponsoring’ the American presidential debates [to avoid spam filters write your own subject line – be creative]
Body: [Be creative! Write your own! Try to include the main points below.]
Four years ago, when Anheuser-Busch was an American company, perhaps it was excusable for them to meddle in American presidential elections by ‘sponsoring’ our presidential debates, even though the corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates is well known to be a bipartisan organization, NOT a nonpartisan organization as they claim, and it made Anheuser-Busch part of a clandestine attempt to duopolize American democracy.
Now it is not acceptable. A Belgian company should not be telling me – an American – I must choose only between presidential candidates who are Republican or Democratic. That is like telling me I can only choose between Coors Light and Miller Lite – I reject both of them.
There are at least FOUR candidates for president in the United States who will be on my ballot. Think Coors Light, Miller Lite, Heineken, and Pabst Blue Ribbon. I want to taste all of them, in Wednesday’s presidential debates, before I make my choice. And so do 98.3% of ALL eligible American voters.
You will notice there was not an AB InBev product on my list of four. That is because, if you decide to continue sabotaging the American presidential elections, I will not be drinking any of your beer, and I will be telling all my friends and family not to drink any of it.
One last thing. What does your Code of Business Conduct say about politics? Let me remind you. Point 8 says this:
Any direct or indirect contribution by the Company to any political party, committee or candidate for public of?ce is strictly forbidden, even if permitted by local regulations, unless the formal approval of AB InBev’s Board of Directors has been obtained in advance.
So please quit sponsoring the American presidential debates, or send me a copy of that FORMAL APPROVAL from your Board of Directors.
Respectfully,
Richard W. Stewart
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
71 Resources for Contacting the Commission on Presidential Debates, Sponsors, etc. « South Carolina Green Party // Oct 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm
[...] a third of what were originally ten sponsors pulling out of the CPD presidential debates which have …. If the CPD removed the non-objective polling criterion for debate inclusion, leaving in place the [...]
72 Open The Presidential Debates « South Carolina Green Party // Oct 1, 2012 at 1:57 pm
[...] a third of what were originally ten sponsors pulling out of the CPD presidential debates which have …. If the CPD removed the non-objective polling criterion for debate inclusion, leaving in place the [...]
73 JD // Oct 1, 2012 at 4:35 pm
While I despise the insanity of the birther argument I would like to invite everyone to check out http://www.obamasrealfather.com it blows the birther argument out of the water. It also helps explain a little bit about Obama’s childhood. Obama is a US citizen just an illegitimate one whose mother was a whore.
74 paulie // Oct 1, 2012 at 4:41 pm
From the more recent thread:
Steve M // Oct 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm
A list of members of the International Bottled Water Association can be found at http://www.bottledwater.org/bottler
the list tells you what cities, state and phone numbers for each member is.
….
No more Arrowhead or Calistoga for me.
You might also recognize Perrier and Evian…
75 From Der Sidelines // Oct 1, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Taint “birther” stuff. ‘Tis documented FACT. The apologists for Panama John simply can’t handle the truth that MushMouth is from Panama, nor have they bothered to do the research.
And Mark Axinn, you are an @$$hole.
P.S. Perot wasn’t nuts; he was correct. He left in the middle because his family was threatened but Bush’s CIA colleagues. That’s old news, too.
76 paulie // Oct 1, 2012 at 9:45 pm
Good talking points for your letters here:
http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/an-open-letter-to-the-commission-on-presidential-debates
77 DSZ // Oct 1, 2012 at 11:34 pm
62 – Good points re. jus soli, and they’re exactly why John McCain was not a natural born citizen. In Rasmussen v. US (a case dealing with the rights of citizens from Alaska), Brown’s concurring opinion stated: “the Constitution does not apply to territories acquired by treaty until Congress has so declared” – in other words Congress has to say whether citizens in unincorporated territories are being born on US soil or not, even if their parents are both Americans thus making them citizens at birth.
78 paulie // Oct 2, 2012 at 3:23 am
Anheuser-Busch is showing some signs that they may be the next sponsor to withdraw support from CPD, while Southwest is sending everyone who writes a form letter saying they are sticking by their position “after careful review.”
79 Steve M // Oct 2, 2012 at 3:30 am
Dear Southwestern Airlines after care full review of your continued support of the anti-democracy presidential debates I do not choose to trust you with my life. My business will go elsewhere.
80 paulie // Oct 2, 2012 at 3:50 am
Someone on FB tracked down the CEO’s direct contact info to bypass the form letter. I don’t have it pulled up right now but may find it again later, if so I’ll post it here.
81 Ballot Access News » Blog Archive » Three Sponsors for the Commission on Presidential Debates Have Withdrawn // Oct 5, 2012 at 3:49 pm
[...] this interesting post at Independent Political Report, which says that three of the ten sponsors for the [...]
82 Al Koholic // Oct 5, 2012 at 6:02 pm
Anheuser-Busch is going to lose some money over this.
Leave a Comment