MSNBC violated election law

[penguin7]

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14feb20071500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2007/janqtr/11cfr110.13.htm

"c) Criteria for candidate selection. For all debates, staging
organization(s) must use pre-established objective criteria to determine
which candidates may participate in a debate. For general election
debates, staging organizations(s) shall not use nomination by a
particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine
whether to include a candidate in a debate. For debates held prior to a
primary election, caucus or convention, staging organizations may
restrict candidate participation to candidates seeking the nomination of
one party, and need not stage a debate for candidates seeking the
nomination of any other political party or independent candidates."

How did the government allow MSNBC to get away with breaking the law?

Edit: Dennis Kucinich met the pre-established criteria set by MSNBC.

[acmavm]

1. They allow GE to break the law all the time. This is just business

as usual.

[itsrobert]

2. You will be more helpful to DK if you explain it to us how MSNBC violated the law

I don't know either way, by what you posted.

[wintersoulja]

3. what chance did DK stand against a crew of politically appointed judges?

no matter which party machinery (and I used to live in NV's capitol) picked them, they werent grassroots jurists. We see this game of checkers every time there is a political decision being made. Rest assured if Dennis had to appeal the first decision, they would not have met so quickly.

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. These rules are for nonprofits n/t

[penguin7]

5. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Did you read the link?

I do not think you are right.

[Tarc]

6. What part of that do you allege MSNBC violated?

[penguin7]

7. For all debates, staging organization(s) must use pre-established objective criteria

[Tarc]

10. and?

This is like pulling teeth. Now do you allege they violated it? Organizations are given the right to determine their own criteria for candidate inclusion. If you can show that Kucinich met MSNBC's criteria yet they dropped him anyways, then you may have a case.

The transmission and later rescindment of the invitation is not proof of anything like that. If initially he did meet the criteria, but the apathetic showings in the Iowa and NH elections dropped him below that criteria, then they had every right to rescind the invitation.

[xiamiam]

8. I just read the link and it appears you are correct although I dont have a mind for legal stuff..

but i think this should be questioned...seriously questioned..thanks

[PATRICK]

9. A sad fact

is that if Richardson, Biden and others had stayed in they would have been more likely forced to carry DK
or incur the wrath of several candidates.

The media controls debates extravagantly whatever the ground rules. They control the networks. Instead, by law, party debates should be set up by and for parties with moderators only moderating rules, not questions and not having speaking spin time as significant as a candidate. The formats could be round robin one on one and other variations. we don't need a variety of scumbag MSM celeb bloviators, almost entirely GOP hitmen, but who in any event can't even conduct a decent GOP debate. Part of the problem in not taking things headon is having the entire campaign sidetracked to media whim.

There should be no special sponsors to these events at all, no corporate control in the slightest, no limitations except whatever foolishness each party lays on itself.

[The Magistrate]

11. Be That As It May, Sir

State courts have no jurisdiction over violations of Federal laws and regulations. Rep. Kucinich went to the wrong venue with his suit.

[penguin7]

16. The FEC should have stopped the MSNBC violation before the damage was done.

The law needed to be enforced. What is the sense in having a law without enforcement?

[Essene]

12. Are you sure there were no criteria? Serious question.

And has the Kucinich campaign made a statement?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. That wasn't Kucinich's legal argument.

His argument was that the invitation constituted a binding, legal contract, and that MSNBC was in breach of contract.

Also, the Magistrate is correct in his assertion that this wouldn't have even been the correct venue in which to make that argument.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. No. You need to read the text you posted

"c) Criteria for candidate selection. For all debates, staging
organization(s) must use pre-established objective criteria to determine
which candidates may participate in a debate. For general election
debates, staging organizations(s) shall not use nomination by a
particular political party as the sole objective criterion to determine
whether to include a candidate in a debate. For debates held prior to a
primary election, caucus or convention, staging organizations may
restrict candidate participation to candidates seeking the nomination of
one party, and need not stage a debate for candidates seeking the
nomination of any other political party or independent candidates."

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

15. No - this is the section that matters

"Criteria for candidate selection. For all debates, staging
organization(s) must use pre-established objective criteria to determine
which candidates may participate in a debate."

Note that it says "for all debates". Kucinich apparently met MSNBC's pre-established objective criteria. He was included in previous debates. If MSNBC then later excludes him, the presumption is that they violated their own criteria. If their criteria can change with the wind, then it's hardly "pre-established objective criteria". Let MSNBC rebut the presumption by presenting to the public the exact written criteria pusuant to which they initially allowed him into the debate. If they then changed their criteria without informing him, the press, or the public, let them indicate exactly how. If they changed it, does it qualify as "pre-established" or not? Was a last minute internal change of their so-called "objective" criteria based on the decision of a news director? Was it the decision of a producer? Who made the decision and upon what objective standards was it based? Was it purely a programming decision based upon the conclusion of a creative development staff meeting? What exact numbers was the decision based upon, or was it based upon the examination of any objective poll numbers by the MSNBC exective who made the programming decision? Unless they expose the criteria upon which they made their determination to exclude him, the presumption can only be that they violated the law.

[The Magistrate]

17. How The Matter Seems To Have Developed, Sir

Is that the network initially extended an invitation to Gov. Richardson, and because he was performing more poorly than Rep. Kucinich at the time, an invitation had to be sent to the latter under any criteria that could admit the former. When Gov. Richardson ended his campaign, that ceased to be a consideration. It remains unclear what the revised criteria were, and when they were revised, so that it is not immediately obvious that this regulation was broken. It would of course be child's play to formulate a set of objective criteria, based on levels of support in polling, delegate count, etc., that would include the three leading candidates and exclude all others. "Pre-determined' specifies only that the standards be in place before the debate, one could readily argue: it does not seem to specify any length of time the standards have to have been in place. It is possible, of course, that in the practice of administering the regulations of the agency over the years, there have been guiding precedents established, but that is a matter for specialists to comment on, and well beyond my ken.