You Must Have Half a Million Dollars to Debate in New York >>>

[Stephanie]

Jonathan Tasini is challenging Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary in New York.

Is this right?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/how-big-media-censors-pol_b_26432.html

How Big Media Censors Political Debate
READ MORE: Hillary Clinton, Iraq
by Jonathan Tasini

Get this: I’m being shut out of a debate for the U.S. Senate not because I lack a base of support, not because I’m not legally on the ballot (I am) and not even because my opponent refuses to debate me (though she is dodging the issue). Nope. It’s because a member of the mainstream media in New York has decided that there is a price of admission—half a million dollars— to be considered worthy of a chance to present my views and agenda to the voters.

That’s right—the legalized corruption of our system (read: the financing of campaigns) is getting a huge pat on the back by NY1, the main all-news cable station in New York City, which is owned by media giant Time Warner. I’m hoping that, no matter whether you support my candidacy or not, you will raise a bloody cry over the following story—because, someday, this could happen to your candidate, too.

To get on the ballot in New York, you need 15,000 signatures of registered Democrats. We blew past that number with ease, gathering 40,000 signatures from people throughout the state who, by putting their name to our petitions, said they want the opportunity to vote for another candidate, or, at least, hear what I have to say. Unlike most petitioning campaigns in New York that rely on paid workers, the overwhelming majority of our signatures were gathered by volunteers—a grassroots network of people spread across the state who braved the heat and rain to corral voters at fairs, festivals, markets, stairwells of apartment buildings or at the doors of voters’ homes.

The Marist Poll affirmed that hard work: it found that 13 percent of the voters would vote for me on Election Day—really an amazing number given that we spent very little money and that, to put it mildly, I was not a household name when I entered the race. Compare that to the Quinnipiac University poll released on February 16 that showed Joe Lieberman leading Ned Lamont by 55 points: 68 to 13. In other words, early in that race, Lamont was polling at exactly the same number I am polling at now (and he had the benefit of a personal fortune to underwrite his campaign). And we now know what has happened in that race.

More important, the poll found that 70 percent of registered Democrats believe that the Iraq War should be a major campaign issue; 62 percent of the voters say they will vote for a candidate who is against the war and only 9 percent said they will vote for someone who supports the war. In other words, my position is embraced by a majority of the Democratic primary voters, while the position of my opponent has very little support.

Yet, NY1’s position is that the people should not hear me. The network’s director of politics tells us that NY1 has set a criteria for participation in the debate that it is sponsoring on August 22nd : a candidate has to poll at least 5 percent and s/he has to have spent or raised at least $500,000.

<more at link>

[KamaAina]

1. Photo op: Tasini shows up at NY1 studios with $500,000

in Monopoly money. Extra style points if he has a sign that pastes Hillary's face onto the Top Hat guy.

[GAPeace]

2. It is 100% wrong

I know the Hillary supporters will come in droves to denounce Tasini -- but can they denounce DEMOCRACY? Everyone should get a fair shot at being a candidate so the voters get a fair shot at who to vote for.

[MadHound]

3. Yes, just another way that the two party/same corporate master

System of government keeps control. And it's even worse if you're a third party running for President. Even though you show well in the polls, have a decent campaign chest, and people want to hear what you have to say, you will get kicked out of the debate hall unless you have a D or R behind your name.

Frankly the only way I see to put an end to this shit is to mandate publicly funded election campaigns for every office in the land, from dogcatcher to President.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Boo hoo hoo

Another fringe candidate whining like a crybaby becasue the media won't treat them like a serious candidate.

[Stephanie]

7. You clearly don't know anything about the candidate or the race

And I guess you think coronations are better than elections.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. Candidates need to take the initiative to increase thier support, instead

blaming thier failures on the media.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. This isn't blaming the media for a lack of voter support

Tasini is polling 13% voter support. This media outlet already agreed to broadcast a debate that includes a candidate who is polling at 3% voter support. That candidate had enough rich backers to qualify for TV1's arbitrary "money in the bank" threshold. The half a million dollar threshold is designed to prevent one and only one candidate from receiving broadcast access, Jonathan Tasini. It is tailored to eliminate him and him only from inclusion in the debates despite the fact that he has greater voter support than a number of the primary candidates that this station plans to broadcast.

What NY1, a for profit entity owned by Times Warner which is a major donor to Hillary Clinton,, has done is discard the first and second most important and traditional standards for determining which candidates are invited to participate in a pre election debate, and instead used a financial criteria of their own design to eliminate one and only one candidate out of the dozen or so who qualified to be listed on the ballot in one of several Democratic or Republican New York Sate primary contests. Tasini met strict provisions to qualify to be on the Democratic ballot. Tasini vastly outperforms the minimum criteria of public support agreed upon (5%) to be invited into the debate. Up until now some combination of those two criteria always determined who would be invited to participate in electoral debates. TV1 just threw that out the window by imposing a new money test. Kind of like a poll tax, except this time the non wealthy candidates, not the non wealthy voters, are screened out of participating.

First off, Jonathan Tasini qualified to run in a Democratic Party Primary race for U.S. Senate, so TV1 is not being faced with deciding where to make a cut in refusing to include third, fourth, fifth, or sixth party candidates into debates. The Democratic Party is the largest political Party in NY State. Second, TV1 is not being faced with an unmanageably large group of candidates to attempt to include in a Democratic Party U.S. Senate Debate. There are only two qualifying candidates, Clinton and Tasini. By eliminating Tasini they eliminate the opportunity for NY Democrats to debate the issues that matter to them relative to how they will be represented in the United States Senate, period. Third, New York State takes official listing on ballots for public office very seriously. It is NOT one of the states where anyone call file a $100 fee, gather 10 signatures, and get put on the ballot.

Typically in New York State, getting a candidate onto the ballot is a major hurdle. In my New York State Senate district, two years ago the Democratic candidate was thrown off of the ballot after a successful court appeal by the Republicans of her petition submission. As a result, the Democrats did not even have a candidate qualified for the November general election in my district two years ago. I has to vote for the intended Democratic Party candidate on the Working Families Party line in order to vote for her at all. Qualifying for the Ballot in New York State is serious business. Jonathan Tasini qualified. He is a serious candidate with the support needed to get onto the ballot. Over 40,000 New York State Democrats signed official petitions asking that he be on the primary ballot, and of course only a small fraction of New York State Democrats were ever given a chance to sign his petitions. NY1 is saying the stated desire of tens of thousands of registered Democrats in New York is irrelevant, what IS relevant to them is how much money Tasini can show them he has in his bank account. Obviously their parent corporation, Times Warner, hasn't donated enough money to Tasini. They only gave support to Clinton.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. This information was posted to a different thread that I started

Time Warner
Top Recipients Among Federal Candidates, 1990-2006

John Kerry (D-MA) $399,184

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $174,480

George W. Bush (R) 172,300

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. Time Warner, like all corporations, is prohibited by law from donating to

Senate candidates.

[Stephanie]

94. link >

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.asp?ID=D000000094&Type=P&Cycle=A

Time Warner
Top Recipients Among Federal Candidates, 1990-2006


Name Total Contributions

John Kerry (D-MA) $399,184

Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) $174,480

George W. Bush (R) $172,300

Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) $163,500

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations were made during the 1989-2006 election cycles and 2005-2006 data were released by the Federal Election Commission on Monday, July 10, 2006. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

[AlGore-08.com]

8. He's polling at 13%, more than required for participation in the debate

NY1 says the candidate has to poll better than 5% to participate AND have raised or spent at least $500,000. Tasini doesn't meet the financial conditions, and he thinks that's unfair. (To put it in even more perspective, Lamont was polling at 13% last February so yes, somebody with 13% can be a serious challenger - - and maybe even beat an incumbent Senator.)

IMNSHO, it's even more important in a primary race to ensure that all voices are heard. So I agree with Tasini - - he should be allowed into this forum.

[rinsd]

11. Ummmmmm

"(To put it in even more perspective, Lamont was polling at 13% last February so yes, somebody with 13% can be a serious challenger - - and maybe even beat an incumbent Senator.) "

Someone at the start of a campaign(ie: at least 6 months before the primary) with 13% with netroots backing, a personal fortune to draw from while financial backers are wooed and inner party outrage at the incumbent.

Tasini has 13% a month before the primary and has raised less than $1/2M with little netroots support and satisfaction within the party with Hillary Clinton (here are her approval numbers broken down by Dem, Liberal etc http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1206,3)

All that said, his participation in the debate should be allowed. He has met a basic voter threshold. Money should not be an issue.

What I would find really interesting is if Hillary debates him at all. Why would an incumbent with a such an enormous lead bother debating? They hardly ever do.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. If Hillary refuses to debate him, that's one thing, that's political

and she can make her own calculations about whether she can and should refuse to debate. Then the public can make what it will of it. But a TV station should not be the one to make money a barrier to public debate between the two candidates who qualified for the primary. The parent company of TV1, Times Warner, is in fact a major $$$ contributer to one of the two candidates in the primary, Hillary Clinton. And now they are screening out her opponent based on him not having raised enough cash, if that isn't a conflict of interest... Well actually, if that isn't a conflict of interest how about this? NY1 is a 24 hour New York content new channel, you would think that they could cover the press conference where Tasini made his case for why he should be included in the debates, but of course not. They don't want to cover Tasini so they don't. And no one can make them because Time Warner owns them. Our Democracy is their business.

[rinsd]

15. We're in agreement. Baseline support should not be money based(nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. Time Warner, like all corporations, are prohibited by law from donating

to Senate campaigns.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. But Lamont also raised enough money to run a serious campaign

[Stephanie]

46. Lamont is independently wealthy - he's a multi-millionaire

He's raised money, yes, but he's also self-funded his campaign with several million of his own dollars. That buys a lot of attention, which begets more donations. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. Tasini has been a labor organizer his whole life, and his family is not wealthy like Lamont's, so he's not in a position to pour millions into his own campaign. So politics is a game for the rich only now, apparently.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Lamont has raised over $1.6 million from individuals

http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_candpg.exe?DoFn=S6CT05066*2006

[Stephanie]

59. And he has donated $3 million of his own money to himself

Money begets money. With $3 million to spend on promotion, it's a lot easier to attract donations.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-liebermanmoney0802.artaug02,0,3523138.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Tasini needs to be able to convince people that he has a chance to win,

otherwise donors will not throw thier money away. So far, he has not been a very good salesman.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Fine, let his debate then like every other Democrat and Republican

in New York who qualified to be listed on either the Democratic or Republican Party ballot for a state wide election. And when he is making actual news, like when he issues a statement strongly disagreeing with Senator Clinton on the stance she is taking regarding Israel and Lebanon, as he has in recent days, let the media cover it, that's what they are there for, isn't it? Sure, let Tasini convince people that he has a chance to win. That is exactly what this thread is about, supporting a basic pillar of Democracy. Allow us an informed electorate, cover the candidates, cover the news, and don't erect arbitrary barriers to debate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. The media is allowed to cover all of this

Who is stopping them?

[Tom Rinaldo]

66. They are stopping them. That is the point.

It is hard to prove an unfair bias when one Press Conference gets covered but another one doesn't. But this time there is a boldly pointed furiously smoking gun that is clearly on display. Tasini made the official ballot, he has far more than the poll number that were asked for, and the media, not New York State's Democratic Party, is denying him a place at the debate because he can't show them enough money. Where else Tasini might not be able to gain entrance to important decision making forums due to not flashing enough money is open to speculation. Here it is nakedly asserted.

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. Money is one of the aspects of a successful campaign

Without it, a candidate will not be able to get his message out.

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. Tasini's message has already connected 4 times stronger

than a candidate who has spent over 5 times more than Tasini, who IS being welcomed into a Primary debate. With more exposure Tasini would raise more money. Some don't want him to get that exposure.

[Nite Owl]

10. He's no fringe

candidate, he's got a serious campaign going against an opponent with a lot of corporate money in the bank (a lot of which is from Big Pharma so forget healthcare reform with Hillary). Read the OP, he has 13% with only recognition from volunteers doing the work in a very large state.

[rinsd]

12. 13% a month out from the election is the definition of fringe

[Outer_Limit]

19. well, a candidate that you support

may be in the position that Tasini is in one day. Perhaps a dem versus a republican, will you be so dismissive then?

[rinsd]

21. Of their chances of winning? Yes.

[Stephanie]

22. Tom Suozzi has ten percent, but he's in the debates

So is Charlie King with 3% (he falls w/i the margin of error). So they are fringe by your definition but they are allowed to debate anyway because their pockets are deep.

[rinsd]

24. Tasini should be allowed to debate on his polling threshold.

The money issue is stupid. I called and expressed my disappointment.

That is seperate from what I think his actual chances in the election are.

[Nite Owl]

31. You still think that

Ned Lamont is fringe too? He was in about the same place a few months back. A debate is a democratic and healthy thing.

[rinsd]

32. 6 months vs. one

Here's a repost in case you missed it

Lamont at the start of a campaign(ie: at least 6 months before the primary) had 13% with netroots backing, a personal fortune to draw from while financial backers are wooed and inner party outrage at the incumbent.

Tasini has 13% a month before the primary and has raised less than $1/2M with little netroots support and satisfaction within the party with Hillary Clinton (here are her approval numbers broken down by Dem, Liberal etc http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b... )

"A debate is a democratic and healthy thing."

Debate is great. Where did I say he shouldn't be allowed to debate? I stated a candidate drawing that little support with even smaller name recognition a month before and election is a fringe candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Just to be philosophical

When I think of the definition of a fringe candidate it is usually along the lines of "someone who comes from and/or represents the fringe". What you are finding with Tasini is instead a seriously under funded candidate as well as a candidate currently with low name recognition. Those things obviously severely limit Tasini's chances of defeating Clinton in a Primary, but they do not make him a "fringe candidate". In fact, the fact that he is already polling 13% given those limitations means that his positions are far from being fringe in New York's Democratic Party. The fact that he has been outspent a hundred to one or whatever it has been so far, and Tasini still made a strong enough impression on those who have heard Tasini and/or his message to poll that high, argues that he is anything but a "fringe candidate". Same for the fact that he was able to mobilize supporters across the State to gather the signatures he needed to make it onto the ballot.

Jonathan Tasini may well be an extreme underdog at this point, but he is not a fringe candidate, and the distinction is an important one, not just semantic. It is the reason why it is important that he be allowed to participate in a debate with Hillary Clinton prior to the Primary election. Tasini holds and represents views that, in at least some cases, are held by more Democrats in New York State than are Hillary Clinton's. That is why I am taking issue with the use of the word "fringe".

But again, I know we agree Tasini should be allowed to debate, and I respect the positions you have stated.

[rinsd]

37. Fair enough. I recognize fringe has connotations I do not intend.

I do not mean Tasisni is fringe on the basis of his views which seem to be much the same as Clinton's with the exception of his views on the war but rather his chances at winning.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Corporations are prohibited by law from donating to Senate candidates

[Outer_Limit]

18. Do some research please

"whining like a crybaby", thats an undeserved cheap shot

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Research indicates that he has not raised enough money to run

a serious camapign. Why would the Democratic party want to nominate someone who can't raise enough money to get his message out?

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Let the voters decide, right Freddie?

The Democratic Party doesn't have to nominate someone who can't get his message out, do they? Not unless a majority of those who vote in New York States Democratic Primary decide that Tasini is the man they want to stand for Congress.

Research shows that Tasini IS running, you need better research. Go into any voting precinct in New York State this December, assuming you are a registered Democrat here, and consult the official ballot for United States Senator. You will find two choices; Hillary Clinton and Jonathan Tasini. What you are trying to say is that research has shown that Tasini hasn't raised enough money to Win. And if that is the case then it's a simple proposition, he won't, so you shouldn't have any problems. That's the beauty of elections I suppose, if you can get past the distorting factor that money plays in our Democracy. Democrats get to nominate who they want for whatever reason they want, in Septemeber. Now we are talking about the public debate of issues though Freddie, and whether or not it is right for TV1 to impose a money test to eliminate Jonathan Tasini from debates when candidates who have ten times the money to spend that Tasini can poll far worse than he does in their own races. That's pathetic right? They have all that money to spend and no one wants to vote for them. I guess that means those are the candidates who deserve free broadcast time, those are the ones who get invited to a debate, since the power of their ideas and the money they have to sell them isn't getting the job done. They need a chance to recoup on their investment. TV1 has sympathy for THOSE kind of candidates.

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. Tasini may be running, but he isn't running very well

He has been unable to raise a significant amount of money, and has not convinced a large proportion of voters that he is a better choice than Hillary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. There is a paradox in your comments

Tasini already has 13% of the vote even though "he has been unable to raise a significant amount of money." That's getting into John Anderson and Ross Perot territory actually, and far far more than third party candidates for almost any race usually receive. But Tasini is not a third party candidate. He is officially on the ballot now to oppose Hillary Clinton in a Democratic State Primary for U.S. Senate. That represents real support from Democrats for a still little known opponent of Hillary Clinton, and she is one of the best known Democrats in American politics. Real support with very little money spent. To me that indicates that there are issues that Democrats in New York State have with how she is representing them, if a virtual unknown is already polling 13% against her having spent only a small fraction of the money she has to date inside New York State. To me that begs for a public debate.

And here is the kicker. It has only been official that there WILL be an official Democratic Primary for Hillary's seat for a few days now. People don't donate to a race that they don't even know is being held. The assumption almost everyone has been under is that Hillary will next face the voters in November, not September, and that the only choice will be between her and a Republican. People are just starting to hear that they will have an opportunity to vote for a Democratic alternative to Hillary Clinton.

[Freddie Stubbs]

81. If a candidate only has one month to educate voters about himself,

he doesn't stand much of a chance.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. Tasini is a long shot. The issues are important. They should be debated

There is nothing contradictory in those statements. People can decide for themselves whether they want to donate to Tasini now that we are certain a primary election for Clinton's seat will be held. Prior to now the argument I kept hearing from Tasini's detractors was that he would never make it onto the ballot so it was a waste of money to donate to him. Now the argument is that there isn't enough time to donate to him. Whatever. The issues deserve attention, and Tasini deserves to be in that debate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

86. Mr. Tasini doesn't 'deserve' anything

He isn't paying for the debate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

89. I appreciate your repeating your position on this matter

It allowed this thread to return to the top of the General Discussion page where others might more easily find it. I already acknowledged your support for media managements right to determine what information need not be made available to citizens in a Democracy. I'm sure Hillary Clinton's new fan Robert Murdoch agrees with you also.

[GAPeace]

25. Fringe? He's involved in every progressive movement in NY just about

Not exactly Comrade Fringe Wingnut.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. The fact that he has only 13% in a poll a month before the primary

combined with his inability shows that his involvement with so-call "progressive movements" hasn't done him much good.

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. For the purpose of this discussion it is irrelevent

It is irrelevent if he has 6% support (one point over the threshold set for debate inclusion) or 60% support. If Tasini is able to garner 13% support with minor financial backing, and almost no press coverage, that indicates his message is being received when and where it is heard.

Every state is different, but it is very tough to get onto the ballot in New York State. Getting onto the ballot through the official petition process here in New York does create an adaquate threshold for inclusion.

The current system is rigged to support people who can get corporate backing, but this move by TV1 is more blatent than usual.

Jonathan Tasini made real news over the last few days by strongly taking a very different position than Hillary Clinton has about how the United States can best serve both Israel's and our own long term interests in that region. Tasini is on the ballot opposing Clinton now, so he is not just some bloke off the street.

What is going on in Israel now is huge news inside New York, Clinton gets lots of air time and news print to talk about it all that she wants. Yet almost no media attention has been given to Tasini's statements on the matter, and you wonder why you haven't heard about him? The gatekeepers can keep him out of the media, and if common people don't hear about him, the people Tasini has to appeal to for funds since he is unlikely to get direct support from Times Warner like Clinton has (and NY1 is a Times Warner station by the way), that will throw a monkey wrench into almost anyone's grass roots fundraising.

The media creates it's own chicken/egg, catch 22 cycle, and lock those out who they don't think belong inside. Usually it is subtle, simply denying coverage, this time it is shocking in how direct the ploy is; "show us the money" before they will give someone exposure that gives them credibility to raise more money.

Nothing mind blowingly unreasonable is being asked by the Tasini campaign; just a spot at the podium to debate the issues before a New York Democratic Primary, along with the only other person who qualified to compete in that Primary. What public good is being advanced by denying Tasini that opportunity? How is the public served to not hear a thoughtful debate on important issues?

Debates are aired periodically between two or more people who aren't even running for office, because the discussion itself is deemed interesting and useful to have. If Jonathan Tasini does not represent a significant enough element of the New York Democratic Party to be heard in a debate for a New York Democratic Primary, wouldn't you think that should be determined by the rules established by New York State and the New York State Democratic Party, and not a privately owned TV Station?

Jonathan Tasini earned his spot on that Democratic Party ballot. He and hunderds of his supporters worked hard over weeks to gain it. He played by the official rules, he shoudn't be denied now by a TV station's arbitrary rules.

[H2O Man]

58. Very good post!

The only thing that I would add is that it is interesting to note the nasty reaction of those who would limit the grass roots' chance to listen to Clinton's primary challenger, and decide for themselves who best represents their values. I note it is the same bitterness that is being expressed by the neoliberal supporters of Lieberman. The truth is that if there were true debates for the public to watch, the primary would be a heck of a lot closer than it is.

[Freddie Stubbs]

67. The TV station is paying for it, so they ultimately get to decide

They don't hold any type of legal monopoly on debates, any organization is free to sponsor one.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. If you are fine with this, suit yourself

Write a letter to TV1 commending them on managing their private assets whatever way they want because they own them and no one else does. By all means be my guest. I am sure you are equally happy with the direction the FCC has taken over the last dozen or so years, allowing the media to consolidate their power to determine what information Americans receive free of pesky fairness doctrine considerations. Maybe you should write them a letter thanking them for their defense of freedom also

Staging debates is a complex business and few broadcast venues are available for State wide rather than national debates. The League of Women Voters entered into agreements with NY1 to carry the debates, I doubt they have very many options to shop around at the last second for another broadcast outlet because TV1 said it won't include one candidate in one of several debates agreed on.

[Freddie Stubbs]

73. The FCC only regulates the content of broadcast TV, not cable TV

NY1 is a cable channel.

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. I was discussing which status quo pleased or displeased you

My concern is with our overall electoral system and how it functions and how increasingly the scope of debate in this country is being limited. Most matters in society are already legally defined, that is to say, certain current practices are considered legal. None the less we elect legislators with the power to meet and pass legislation that redefines what is legal, and to establish new mandates covering the operation of private business in a myriad number of ways. Sometimes restrictions are relaxed, sometimes they are increased. Usually there is a political climate established that supports the direction that government initiatives are likely to move in.

The public has a major say, as well it should, in what the prevailing political climate will be. Specific vested interests also have a major say. Speaking as a member of the public it is my view that too much power is being given to private media to determine what political messages get heard and what do not. Here we have what I feel is a very specific and telling case in point. I don't think it is in the public interest to simply sit idly by and allow TV1 to disallow Jonathan Tasini to appear in a Primary debate based on their own self developed money criteria. It has not been my point that it is illegal for TV1 to exclude Jonathan Tasini, it has been my point that it is a dangerous precedent to allow go unchallenged by the public. I advocate the public challenging them on that. Apparently you don't.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Perpahs some people actually have a life outside of the Internet and

actually get involved in campaigns, rather than sitting in front a a computer 24/7.

[hedgehog]

41. Tasini had to get over 15,000 signitures from across the state.

Hardly a fringe candidate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

52. Most people will sign just about anyting

It seems that not that many of those people have been willing to make a financial investment in Mr. Tasini's campaign.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. He's raised about as much money as most Congressional candidates

Well over a hundred thousand dollars so far for a primary campaign. That's not a lot of money to compete state wide with in New York, granted. But Tasini started with very little name recognition and virtually no institutional support. What many of "those people" who you describe were willing to do was go out into the streets of a very hot New York summer and gather those 40,000 signature petitions as volunteers. Petitions to qualify for someone to be on the ballot aren't like "Stop Walmart" petitions. They are time consuming to gather; signature as registered, printed name, address, Town of residence blah blah, every signature has to be personally witnessed, none of that taping it to a store counter business. Only registered Democrats can sign, and only those who would like to see Clinton have a primary opponent in 2006 did sign.

But again, I am not on this thread arguing about Tasini's chance to beat Clinton. I am arguing about this move by NY1 to insert money as a barrier to free political speech.

[Freddie Stubbs]

62. Most successful Congressional campaigns raise a lot more than that

for a contested primary. But this guy is running state-wide in a state with the most expensive media market in the country.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. What do you have to say on the subject of this thread?

I know what you have to say about Tasini's chances as a candidate. What do you have to say about TV1 being able to over ride the traditional criteria for candidate debate inclusion to eliminate Tasini from the debates and not candidates who are polling down to one fourth the support Tasini is currently registering in polls?

[Freddie Stubbs]

68. It is completely untrue

TVI does not have a monopoly on the ability to sponsor debates. Other organizations are free to sponsor debates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. I just spoke to your point in my post #70 n/t

[SmokingJacket]

69. He's not a fringe candidate -- he's the only serious challenger to Clinton

He has my vote.

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. Serious candidates are able to raise enough money to

thier message out.

[Clark2008]

82. Actually, that shouldn't be the issue. We have media for that.

The media is SUPPOSED to get the message out to their readers/viewers/listeners as part of their "official" Fourth Estate duties. It's for the public good.

That the media is counting beans sickens me as a former reporter.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Exactly. Well said. It sickens me too. n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

87. Not every candidates qualifies for the same amount of coverage

Lyndon LaRouche doesn't merit the same amount of coverage as John Kerry.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. But since Lyndon Larouche's cult backers can probably raise a half million

TV1 would have no problem letting him debate Hillary Clinton, as long as his poll ratings were within the 3% margin of error of a 5% cut off (hint: that means 2%). Except Lydon Larouche would have a hard time mobilizing the support needed, through the formal petition process, to gain formal entry into a Democratic Primary against Hillary Clinton. Whew! Close call. I bet Larouche could pull off polling the 3% support that another candidate who NY1 IS willing to broadcast does. If it weren't for that nasty little business of having to officially get on the ballot, NY1 would deem Lyndom LaRouche worthy of equal broadcast time with Hillary Clinton in one of their debates, unlike Jonathan Tasini of course. He only qualified to get onto the official Democratic ballot and is polling at 13% support mere days after a Democratic Senate Primary election for Senate was triggered off.

[H2O Man]

5. That's terrible.

I hope that you provide information about who DUers can contact to protest this attempt to silence a serious candidate.

[Stephanie]

6. If you go to the link the information is there

:hi:

[H2O Man]

20. Thank you.

Keep up the Good Fight.

[leftchick]

28. Thank you Stephanie!

These neo-con Democrats have to be purged. Strting with Lieberman and Clinton!

You Go Girl!

:hi:

[warrens]

9. While I understand their point, being on the ballot should be enough

If you're on the ballot, you are, ipso facto, a legitimate candidate. OTOH, the news media have a right to make up their own minds about who has a realistic chance of winning. In this case, though, I think they went too far. He ain't going to beat Hillary, but at least he should be heard.

The problem is that in some states, it's ridiculously easy to get on the ballot. A couple hundred signatures and you're in. Having 17 fringe candidates screaming at each other is something any news organization would want to avoid. This however is a legitimate challenge, similar in some ways to Connecticut, and the challenger should be judged as newsworthy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. It's very hard to qualify for the ballot in NY through petitions

Joe Lieberman can start his own political Party with some 8,000 odd signatures in CT. Jonathan Tasini turned in over 40,000 signatures of registered Democrats in NY State who wanted him added to the Primary ballot. Hillary's husband Bill had a quote he liked to make; people who work hard and play by the rules shouldn't be punished. Tasini played by the official rules, and a lot of people worked hard to get him qualified for the Primary. Neither New York State nor New York's Democratic Party said anything about him having to have a half million dollars. Not having enough money can be a reason why someone loses an election, but it isn't a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to fully participate in it. Tasini got on the ballot, he has the polling numbers the TV Station said they were looking for. How can they defend a criteria that says, if a multi millionaire wants to run and donates half a mill to his own campaign, he can debate the issues, but someone who can't write that type of personal check is just out of luck?

Obviously for Tasini to win would require a political upset of significant magnitude, but the fact that he already has 13% of the vote in polls given how little name recognition he currently has shows that he has a lot of upside to his potential support. Does that make him a likely winner? Probably not, but, combined with his ability to gather the signatures needed to get onto NY's ballot, those numbers today make Tasini much more than just a fringe candidate. Word is only now spreading that another Democrat qualified for the Democratic U.S. Senate Seat Primary. Tasini's current support is his low point, it will go up from here. He earned inclusion in a debate.

[rinsd]

23. I do not consider 15,000 sigs to be significantly harder than 8,000

New York has roughly 20 million people.

CT only has 3.5 to 4 million.

So its harder in CT to get the sigs you need by simple virtue of proportion.

"Obviously for Tasini to win would require a political upset of significant magnitude"

If Tasini were to win it would be the political upset of all time. Beating an incumbent with 60% general approval, 75% + approval in her party and amongst most likely primary voters (ie: liberals), incredible name recognition, an enormous war chest and a 70% lead one month before the primary?

Again, that said, he should be able to debate based on the polling threshold, money should not be the issue.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. They have to all be registered Democrats to get on the Primary ballot

and Tasini actually collected 40,000 signatures, and Lieberman has a little more name recognition in CT than Tasini does in NY, but we don't have any real disagreement here. I appreciate the basic position you are taking on this.

[rinsd]

29. I'm being a a bit of a nitpicker and for that I am sorry.

We should focus on simply giving the man a chance to debate.

I believe he has earned it.

[im10ashus]

27. "He earned inclusion in a debate."

Exactly! And he has to be afforded the same treatment as any other candidate. Time to make another donation to Tasini!

Kick and Nominate!

:kick:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. I don't have a problem with a minimum poll rating being a requirement.

Although it should probably be less than 13% if it is.

But given that it would be theoretically possible to win an election without raising or spending $500,000 such a money standard is clearly absurd.

[Stephanie]

42. The minimum is 5% within the margin of error so 3% would qualify

One of the atty genl cadidates has 3% - he's invited to debate.

[Rex]

13. This is why no average working man will ever be POTUS.

Only rich people get to be President in the 21st century. The corporate elites don't want the average joe to see just how unequal life is. Never ever.

[Stephanie]

16. Many candidates are multi-millionaires self-financing their campaigns

But you don't become a millionaire working as a labor organizer and a freelance writer.

[Rex]

33. That's my point.

Money, money! One of my favorite songs;


Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around
Money makes the world go around
It makes the world go 'round.

A mark, a yen, a buck, or a pound
A buck or a pound
A buck or a pound
Is all that makes the world go around,
That clinking clanking sound
Can make the world go 'round.


Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money


If you happen
To be rich,

.......Ooooh

And you feel like a
Night's entertainment,

...Money

You can pay for a
Gay escapade.

Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money

If you happen
To be rich,

.......Ooooh

And alone, and you
Need a companion

...Money

You can ring-ting-
A-ling for the maid.

If you happen
To be rich

.....Ooooh

And you find you are
Left by your lover,

...Money

Though you moan
And you groan
Quite a lot,

Money money
Money money
Money money
Money money

You can take it
On the chin,

.....Ooooh

Call a cab,
And begin

...Money

To recover
On your fourteen-
Carat yacht.


Money makes the world go around,
The world go around,
The world go around,
Money makes the world go around,
Of that we can be sure.
(....) on being poor.


Money money money-
money money money
Money money money-
money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money




If you haven't any coal in the stove
And you freeze in the winter
And you curse on the wind
At your fate
When you haven't any shoes
On your feet
And your coat's thin as paper
And you look thirty pounds
Underweight.
When you go to get a word of advice
From the fat little pastor
He will tell you to love evermore.
But when hunger comes a rap,
Rat-a-tat, rat-a-tat at the window...


At the window...


Who's there?


Hunger!


Ooh, hunger!

See how love flies out the door...
For


Money makes
The world...

...Go around

The world...

...Go around

The world...

...Go around

Money makes the
.... Go around

...Go around

That clinking
Clanking sound of
Money money money money money money
Money money money money money money


Get a little,

Money money

Get a little,

Money money

Money money

Money money

Money money

Money money


Mark, a yen, a buck

Get a little

Or a pound

Get a little

That clinking clanking

Get a little
Get a little


Clinking sound


Money money
Money money...


Is all that makes
The world go 'round


Money money
Money money

It makes the world go round!

[Nikki Stone 1]

30. PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS. NOW

nt

[proud patriot]

84. amen

[Nikki Stone 1]

95. Such a democratic solution

And we might get people other than the most greedy. And maybe some third and fourth parties.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. So in theory the frontrunner could be barred from the debate?

The idea that money should be a requirement for participating in such a debate is clearly a silly one.

In this case, the only candidate being barred is an irrelevant one, but if he can get 13% without $500,000 then it's far from impossible that someone else could get more.

Any standard that could lead to the person with the most votes being barred from the debate is ipse facto absurd. This should be fixed before it actually blocks someone with a chance of winning from the debates.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Kick for the night crowd n/t

[blogslut]

40. greedy damned media

Call me a dreamer but I think the local and national media should be forced to give all candidates free airtime and print space across the board. It's sickening that one must be independantly wealthy to win an election.

[H2O Man]

48. It's not just an injustice

for the candidate being shut out of the debate -- it's an injustice for all of the democrats in our state, who really should be able to hear the primary alternative to Senator Clinton. I urge DUers to go to the link in the OP, and to contact those who are responsible for deciding to limit the debate, and thus the public's chance to weigh their options.

[hedgehog]

80. This is the first primary for the 2008 Presidential Race.

I put this in another thread but it got buried. The "common wisdom" is that Hillary wins big in the Democratic Primary Race for Senate, wins re-election handily and then starts her presidential campaign November 8. This is the first and maybe only chance to stop a big bucks steam roller and realy discuss who we want to pick up the pieces after B*sh is gone.

[EFerrari]

88. Anyone have a take on the orientation of this station?

:kick:

[Stephanie]

91. It's 24 hour local news

Very legit, no spin.

[EFerrari]

92. Hmm. But, exclusion is radical spin, wouldn't you say?

Our local media did a similar during the last hotly contested mayoral race. Turned out, it didn't matter all that much. But, that was just citywide.

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. Here is contact Info on how to tell NY1 what you think

From the Tasini campaign:

"We are asking you to immediately call Robert Hardt, NY1's Director of
Politics, who was one of a few media power-brokers who made this decision that is
closing off discussion and censoring debate. We are calling for a simple criteria for
participation: any candidate who has qualified for the ballot should be
allowed into the debate. Call or e-mail him TODAY: 212-379-3330 or
[e-mail] and demand that NY1 revise its criteria."

For more information on and coverage of this controversy, go to Tasini's web site:
www.tasinifornewyork.org

[Trillo]

96. Yep, gotta keep the rif raf commoners out of politics,

DRIVE UP THE COST of running for office, and brought to you by your friendly corporatist media, who urge you to keep watching.

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. DU can make a difference here

What happens with this $$$ barrier to public debate at NY1 may not be noticed immediately by the general public, but it will be noticed by other mains stream media outlets. If it is deemed that a money litmus test is allowable to deny someone who qualified for the ballot and has acceptable polling numbers access to a debate, you know this will be copied in other states, for other debates. DU members can help nip this form of censorship in the bud if enough of us react now and put pressure on NY1 to reverse their decision, and allow free debate between the Democrats that New York Democrats saw fit to qualify for the ballot.