http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/27/presidential-debate-contract-secret_n_1919940.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=3130762,b=facebook

Here is the official copy of the contract.

It reads as follows;








































.

Transparent as glass, no?

Press Release:

JOHNSON CAMPAIGN FILES ANTI-TRUST ACTION AGAINST NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Sept. 21, 2012, Saint Paul, Minn. — Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s campaign today filed an anti-trust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California challenging Johnson’s exclusion from upcoming debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Commission announced earlier Friday that invitations to the debates were being extended only to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

Announcing the campaign’s legal action, senior Johnson advisor Ron Nielson said, “There is nothing remotely surprising in the fact that a private organization created by and run by the Republican and Democratic Parties has only invited the Republican and Democratic candidates to their debates. It is a bit more disturbing that the national news media has chosen to play the two-party game, when a full one-third of the American people do not necessarily identify with either of those two parties.

“American voters deserve a real debate between now and Election Day. By excluding Gov. Johnson, the Commission on Presidential Debates has guaranteed that there will be no one on the stage challenging continued wars, calling for a balanced budget now — as opposed to decades down the road, and who has never advocated government-run health care.

“Someone has to stand up and call this what it is: A rigged system designed entirely to protect and perpetuate the two-party duopoly. That someone will be the Johnson campaign. We are today filing a lawsuit in Federal Court charging that the National Commission and the Republican and Democratic Parties, by colluding to exclude duly qualified candidates outside the Republican and Democratic Parties, are in violation of the nation’s anti-trust laws.

“It is unfortunate that a successful two-term governor who is already assured of being on the ballot in 47 states and the District of Columbia is forced to turn to the courts to break up a rigged system, but it appears that fairness is not to be found otherwise.”

Johnson’s running mate and retired California Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, who is also a plaintiff, will argue the motion on the campaign’s behalf.

The lawsuit, filed only hours after the Commission’s announcement, charges that the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee and an organization they set up, the Commission on Presidential Debates, have conspired together to restrain trade, both in ideas and in commerce. The lawsuit maintains that the Republican and Democratic Parties, through the CPD, indefensibly limits access of other candidates to the marketplace of ideas and the opportunity to be employed in these highest offices in the land, and in so doing are violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890.

The lawsuit seeks an order of the Court enjoining the debates from proceeding unless all candidates who will appear on the ballot in enough states to win in the Electoral College are allowed to participate.

Nielson said the Johnson campaign would likely file additional lawsuits in additional jurisdictions challenging the exclusion of Johnson and Gray from the debates on other grounds.

Prior to 1988, the League of Women Voters sponsored nationally-televised presidential debates. The League withdrew its debate sponsorship after the Republican and Democratic campaigns negotiated an agreement to determine which candidates could participate, who would be panelists, and other details of the debates. The League withdrew its support for the debates because “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetuate a fraud on the American voter.”

Contact:Natalie Dicou
nataliedicou
801-994-0321

Joe Hunter
media
801-303-7924

a Libertarian making use of the cursed anti-Trust Laws?

I'd like to see it.

So, the alleged secret contract is between two private parties.
What is the legal basis for demanding that the alleged secret contract be made public?

Because it goes against open elections by not allowing all "running and electable" (capable of receiving 270 electorial votes) candidates to debate and be heard on an equal status, defying the purpose of a debate at all!

Basicly, they are buying the vehicle used to promote the office of the president, and not allowing anyone else to ride! They are a large part of what is wrong with the system, and why a 3rd party doesn't have a chance to be heard or seen by the viewing public.

The rules are also bogus. "you don't ask this and I won't ask that...". "we [both] (only the 2 parties) agree not to talk about this..."

It's a 2 party scam meant to eliminate the option of a real choice, or an actual debate with all available candidate choices vying for the office on important issues..... entertainment, a game show, fixed, and nothing to do with what's really important!

Any open competition has rules.

We should be able to know what rules they are playing by, no?