Michael Badnarik arrested

[snuffbox 0]

From lp.org

 

Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik was arrested on Friday, Oct. 8, when he crossed a police line in a planned political protest at the St. Louis, Mo., debate between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry.

 

Badnarik was attempting to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) with a court order from an Arizona Superior Court judge. The judge had ordered a representative from the CPD to appear in court to prove that a debate scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 13, does not constitute special treatment for the Democrats and Republicans.

 

Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb also crossed the police line to demand access to the St. Louis debate, and was arrested. The two candidates were placed in handcuffs and taken to jail where they spent several hours before being released.

 

A few area residents who were simply trying to get home when they crossed the police lines were also arrested, witnesses said.

 

Badnarik was charged with two misdemeanor offenses -- trespassing and "refusing a reasonable request from a police officer" -- and was released without bond.

 

His court appearance for the charges is scheduled for December, and Stephen Gordon, communications director for the Badnarik campaign, said the candidate "hasn't decided whether he is going to contest the charge."

 

Earlier Friday, the Badnarik campaign had announced that either he would debate Kerry and Bush in St. Louis or he would go to jail.

 

"A majority of Americans say that I should be included in the events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates," Badnarik said in the announcement. "And the CPD, as a non-profit, has received special treatment from government on the requirement that they be non-partisan in their activities."

 

But the CPD hasn't been non-partisan, Badnarik continued, saying that "bi-partisan" is not the same thing as "non-partisan."

 

"Unless I am allowed to participate, the debates become a massive campaign contribution to two of the candidates, illegal under the very campaign finance laws those two candidates have passed and signed as senator and president," he said.

 

"We'd have preferred to see John Kerry and George Bush stand up like men to debate the issues facing America," Gordon said.

 

"However, they have interposed the machinery of government between the American people and the honest debate which must precede any honest election. Now it's up to patriots like Michael Badnarik to force the issue."

 

The third Bush-Kerry debate, to be held at Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz., is scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 13.

 

Libertarians in Arizona filed a lawsuit Oct. 1, claiming that the state constitution prohibits donations of taxpayer money to corporations like the CPD. As a public university -- funded by tax money -- the university should not contribute to the debate, the Libertarian Party of Arizona's lawsuit claims.

 

"There are three candidates on the ballot in Arizona [bush, Kerry and Badnarik], and the university -- in collusion with an allegedly non-partisan, allegedly non-profit organization, is spending about $2 million to publicize the views of only two of them.," Gordon said.

 

On Oct. 8, Arizona Superior Court Judge Pendleton Gaines issued an "Order to Show Cause," calling for representatives of the university and the CPD "to show why a restraining order against the debate should not issue," said Jason Auvenshine, chairman of the Arizona LP.

 

University representatives have said they plan to use money from private grants and other non-public sources to fund the debate, which is expected to cost between $2 million and $2.5 million. As such, it wouldn't be publicly funded, they maintain.

 

But the Tempe, Ariz., City Council sent $20,000 to the university to be used for the debate, so public funds would still be used for the debate, Gordon said.

 

The Libertarians will also show the judge a letter signed by the co-chairmen of the CPD, stating that the university had spent "substantial resources on preparation."

 

The order was successfully served to the university by Joel Beckwith, a Badnarik supporter in Arizona.

 

Staff members from the Libertarian Party's national headquarters in Washington D.C. were able to serve the court order at the CPD office in DC. But later attempts to serve additional papers were rebuffed, when security officers refused to allow the Libertarians into their building or to bring CPD staff down from their office.

 

The paperwork was left in the building, though, and that -- combined with audio recording and photographs as evidence that they attempted to serve the papers -- was enough to satisfy the judge, who agreed to hold this morning's meeting, according to David Euchner, the attorney representing the Libertarian Party of Arizona in its lawsuit.

 

While some Libertarians disagreed with Badnarik's strategy, others said they thought his decision to cross the police line could be as significant as the civil disobedience demonstrated by Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activists.

 

As David T. Terry of the Libertarian Party of Oregon said, "The world has always been changed by small acts of insignificant people whose courage and commitment to principles made their acts significant. I suggest that after tonight, the two-party system will never be the same!"

 

Libertarians are now eagerly awaiting the results of today's hearing with Judge Pendleton.

 

"We're asking for one of two things to happen," Gordon said. "We're asking for them to either shut down the debate, or reimburse the 17,000 registered Libertarian voters in the state of Arizona -- who have paid tax money that is paying for a debate from which they will not receive any benefit."

 

http://lp.org/lpnews/0411/arrest.html

[2GOLD 0]

Wow, a shocker. The third parties are not allowed in the debates again.

Stunning.

 

Oddly enough, I wasn't even made aware of a protest. I didn't know there was one.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well if a Third Party would get more than one percent of the vote they might be allowed to participate...

[St. Gabe 0]

I sense sarcasm there KKK, but I'm not positive, so here goes: It's a catch twenty two. 3rd parties don't get into the debates because they don't get enough votes to warrant it, but If they were in the debates they would get those votes.

 

Every time major changes have occured in this country politically, barring 9/11, it has been because a third party's platform gained enough recognition and one of the 2 major parties absorbed said 3rd parties platform.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

That's it. Now I am voting .. for Bad. He's right, ya know...

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Part sarcasm Part truth:

 

If a Third Party wants to take itself seriously, then get cracking at the grass-roots level, acquire a following that's more than a few percentage points of the popular vote, and then you'll have a case for being included with the "Big Boys..."

[Guest Shoes Head]

^^ Precisely. Third parties don't even begin promoting their candidates until a few months before the election anyway. If they made their intentions known a year in advance and proceeded from there, they'd be better off.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Funny that Perot didn't seem to have these problems but maybe that was because he actually had support.

[Ted the Poster 0]

... and an assload of cash, let's not forget.

[Highland 0]

Money talks, as is needed for any candidate to run a campaign, regardless of their political affiliation.

[Guest MikeSC]

I sense sarcasm there KKK, but I'm not positive, so here goes: It's a catch twenty two. 3rd parties don't get into the debates because they don't get enough votes to warrant it, but If they were in the debates they would get those votes.

 

Every time major changes have occured in this country politically, barring 9/11, it has been because a third party's platform gained enough recognition and one of the 2 major parties absorbed said 3rd parties platform.

There has to be a cut-off point. Do you realize how many parties "run" for President? If we allow ALL of them to participate, the debates become an unmanageble fiasco.

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

You really can't have a President that has no political representation in Congress or any other branch of government. They really do need to get some grass roots support before they really get included into the Debates and such.

[2GOLD 0]

So why not have a third party debate?

Maybe ONE of those turns out to seem sane and can eventually pull open from the pack of thirds and be able to move into the debate next year.

 

Or how about the highest placing third party from the last election gets a spot? So whichever third party finishes the highest will KNOW their candiate will be involved in the debate next time around and will have a reason to work harder than before.

 

If that party falters and loses the spot, then the next party gets a shot to establish itself.

 

It could actually, you know, give us a THIRD OPTION that doesn't seem like a flushed vote.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

So why not have a third party debate?

Maybe ONE of those turns out to seem sane and can eventually pull open from the pack of thirds and be able to move into the debate next year.

Actually they have but most people wouldn't have heard about it due to lack of media coverage.

[Dr. Tom 0]

You really can't have a President that has no political representation in Congress or any other branch of government. They really do need to get some grass roots support before they really get included into the Debates and such.

Exactly, and that should be built into the standards for partcipating in a Presidential debate. In order for a party to have its candidate be invited, that party has to have at least four seats in the House, or one seat in the Senate. I'd even settle for two or three governors, since that implies some level of national (or at least regional) support. But without any other voice in the government, why should we take these third parties seriously? Make them go out and earn their place in the debates instead of being handed them.

 

In five years, I can legally run for President. Should I automatically be invited to the debates if I do?

[Crimson Platypus 0]

Make them go out and earn their place in the debates instead of being handed them.

How do you propose they do that? Two candidates from major political parties were arrested on Friday night and it got 0, yes ZERO media coverage. That is just one more example of the media bias towards the Dems and Reps. The thing is, as long as that bias is so strong there is no way that most people will learn that there are other viable candidates out there.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

In five years, I can legally run for President.  Should I automatically be invited to the debates if I do?

Only if you have me as your running mate. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

With me alongside, you'd kill in flyover country but probably wouldn't fare too well in the urban centers...