Americans may want a viable independent to run for president, but that sentiment is not enough. The old adage “politics abhors a vacuum” is true, but vast obstacles make it incredibly arduous to fill the vacuum despite desire of a majority of Americans.
The reality imposed by the anti-democratic actions and rules imposed by the two-party duopoly is a formidable barricade to the success of such a candidacy.
The Democratic and Republican parties, with full malice and intent, have acted to create a rigged duopoly. Neither wants a third challenger, and both have actively colluded to prevent one from ever having a chance. The parties instinctively understand that their key to political power lies in making sure that the choice is between the lesser of two evils. One way is by making it nearly impossible for third-party candidates to compete for donations on a level playing field. Right after the 2014 midterms, the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress met in secret and then changed the law so that individual donors giving to the two major party candidates could donate $834,000 per year in total contributions through their parties while those giving to independents were limited to just $2,700.
There are obstacles, too, at the state level. While Democratic and Republican parties are automatically put on the ballot, independents face different hurdles in all 50 states, including filing deadlines that are far too early, differing signature requirements, and other onerous regulations that make it difficult and costly to get on the ballot.
Then, there are the obstacles placed by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which was established in the wake of Watergate to oversee the conduct of federal campaigns. That FEC has become the most notorious, ineffective, inefficient and corrupt of all federal agencies. It is composed of three super-partisan members – often undisputable political hacks – from each of the two major parties. Because every vote is potentially a tie, each side is able to stymie any meaningful enforcement or regulation of the electoral system and to protect its side from any tough political sanctions. In most cases, the two parties collude to protect the duopoly. The chance that a challenge by an independent or third-party will be considered on the merits is about as favorable as the chance an African-American had of passing a literacy test in my native South when I was a child.
But the worst blight on our democracy is the conduct by the unelected, unaccountable, secretive private organization called the
Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD was founded in 1987 to ensure that the final fall debates – three for the presidential candidates, beginning this year on Sept. 26, and one for the vice presidential contenders, on Oct. 9 – “provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners.” In truth, the CPD’s real agenda is to make that mission the great lie of American politics.
The
true mission of the CPD is to deny independents and third-party candidates a national platform for their views and to their candidacies to be put before the American electorate. To make sure that the only two sanctioned choices are the nominees of the duopoly, the CPD is co-chaired by the former head of the Republican National Committee, Frank Fahrenkopf, and the former press secretary to President Bill Clinton, the Democratic activist Mike McCurry. Other board members are also party regulars and deep-pocketed donors. Some have been outspoken in their views that the CPD’s role is to perpetuate the hold the two parties have on our electoral system. As former
Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo) said when he was a commissioner: “If you like the multi-party system, then go to Sri Lanka and India and Indonesia.”
