GOP warns CNN, NBC to drop Hillary Clinton programs or be shut out of 2016 Republican debates

[Evil_Captor]

I see this as a deep strategy by the Republicans. They will attempt to suppress all the information they can about Hillary, then, when they are ready, they will unleash a contingent of Hillary Deniers who will, against all evidence and logic, argue that Hillary does not exist, hence cannot run for President.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

I’ll read the case if you find it, but it doesn’t sound like that argument applies here, when the discussion is the national party and its actions with respect to its national convention and national candidates.

Were you arguing that it does?

Possibly, though I can’t find the case. Remember, we don’t vote for POTUS as a nation.

[aNewLeaf]

Or that she’s already been President and can’t run again.

Or that Hillarywas born in New Zealand, although we have precedent for a foreign President.

[BrainGlutton]

Why does the RW hate Hillary so much anyway? Where’s all that coming from? They’re used to Democrats in politics and they’re used to women in politics and they’re used to female Dems. What’s so special about HRC?

[aNewLeaf]

She’s a powerful, intelligent, independent woman who is outspoken and unwilling to subordinate herself.
It’s antithetical to everything the Hard Right espouses.

[The_Second_Stone]

@BrainGlutton

Why does the RW hate Hillary so much anyway? Where’s all that coming from? They’re used to Democrats in politics and they’re used to women in politics and they’re used to female Dems. What’s so special about HRC?

She is going to kick their asses so hard they will stop wearing them for hats.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@BrainGlutton

Why does the RW hate Hillary so much anyway? Where’s all that coming from? They’re used to Democrats in politics and they’re used to women in politics and they’re used to female Dems. What’s so special about HRC?

WAG: they’re not used to First Ladies doing things. Hillary’s post-election comments about not “staying home to bake cookies” upset the “family values” crowd. They wanted her to confine herself to redecorating the White House and filming PSAs like Nancy Reagan.

[BrainGlutton]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

WAG: they’re not used to First Ladies doing things. Hillary’s post-election comments about not “staying home to bake cookies” upset the “family values” crowd. They wanted her to confine herself to redecorating the White House and filming PSAs like Nancy Reagan.

Jeez, it’s like they still haven’t gotten over Eleanor Roosevelt.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Possibly, though I can’t find the case. Remember, we don’t vote for POTUS as a nation.

Well, as I said, find the case, I’ll read it and give you my reactions. Until then, I remain firmly ensconced in the “not a government actor” camp.

[Richard_Parker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Possibly, though I can’t find the case. Remember, we don’t vote for POTUS as a nation.

Whether and to what extent the national parties are state actors is a fascinating and complicated question.

The case you’re thinking of is Terry v. Adams. But that was about a non-party “Jayhawk” primary. Even before that, in Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court held that party-run primaries are state action.

Republican Party of Texas v. Dietz is a decent summary of the state of things, basically saying that while the election- and candidate-selection related aspects of party activity are state action, the advocacy is not. But it’s not at all well-settled or clearly delineated.

[Richard_Parker]

Here’s the relevant quote from Dietz:

Accordingly, federal courts have held that some party activities, such as holding elections, are public state action, while other activities are private.   In Seergy v. Kings County Republican County Comm., 459 F.2d 308, 314 (2d Cir.1972), the Second Circuit declined to extend “the Equal Protection requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment to ․ the county committee in the conduct of its internal party affairs which have no direct relation to the electoral process.”   Similarly, in Lynch v. Torquato, 343 F.2d 370, 372 (3d Cir.1965), the Third Circuit held that “the normal role of party leaders in conducting internal affairs of their party, other than primary or general elections, does not make their party offices governmental offices or the filling of these offices state action.”   In Kay v. New Hampshire Democratic Party, 821 F.2d 31, 33 (1st Cir.1987), the First Circuit held that the New Hampshire Democratic Party did not engage in state action in holding a presidential candidates’ forum because the forum was not an integral part of the election process.   Accordingly, the Democratic Party had the absolute right to exclude a Democratic presidential candidate from the forum, even though the candidate had originally been invited to participate.  Id.  The Sixth Circuit concluded in Banchy v. Republican Party of Hamilton County, 898 F.2d 1192, 1196 (6th Cir.1990), that the election of party ward chairmen was not state action because there was no evidence that the chairmen played an “integral part” in the election process.   See also Valenti v. Pennsylvania Democratic State Comm., 844 F.Supp. 1015, 1018, 1020 (M.D.Pa.1994)(holding that the Democratic Party was not a state actor when holding an endorsement meeting;  accordingly, the Party could preclude a gubernatorial candidate from disseminating certain materials from his boot3, 1018-19 (D.Neb.1991))(holding that removal of county officers of Republican Party was not state action but merely an internal party affair).   See also generally Epstein, Political Parties in the American Mold 190 (1986)(noting that the different responses by courts to cases involving party activities can only be explained by “distinguishing between two kinds of party activities, those that the state can constitutionally control as elements in its election process and those that it cannot so control because they are private associational affairs.”).

We agree that a political party is a state actor in some instances, such as when it is conducting elections, but a private organization in other instances, such as when it is conducting certain of its internal affairs.   We must determine where, along this spectrum, the Republican Party’s conduct falls.   We hold that the actions of the Republican Party in denying LCR the booth and advertisement were mere internal party affairs.   The stated purpose of LCR in attempting to obtain a booth and advertising space was to work toward changing the Party’s internal platform.   However, a Party’s platform is not an element of the electoral process.   Party candidates are free to accept in part and reject in part the platform, and there is no requirement that a party member adhere to all portions of the platform.   While there are many provisions of the Texas Election Code regulating the conduct of political parties, these provisions do not regulate or even require that a political party have a platform.   See Tex. Elec.Code §§ 161-192.

The fact that the Republican Party has adopted by reference the Texas Constitution “in so far as [it] may be applicable” does not affect our analysis.   As we have held, the free speech, equal rights, and due course of law provisions of the Texas Bill of Rights are only applicable when state action is present;  thus, the fact that the Party agreed to abide by the Constitution when “applicable” does not change the controlling issue.   Because the Republican Party’s conduct in denying LCR a booth and advertisement at the convention is an internal party affair rather than an integral part of the election process, the Republican Party is not a state actor under the undisputed facts of this case.   Therefore, LCR cannot maintain its state constitutional claims against the Party, and the district court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction based on these claims.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@BobLibDem

I guess I would frame it a bit differently.

Citizens United Case
Republicans: We want to use the public airwaves during a primary season to smear a political candidate even though it violates the Fairness Doctrine.

Supreme Court: Party on, dudes! Fairness Doctrine in unfair to rich people!

I don’t really feel like wading too much into this, but IIRC, Hillary: The Movie wasn’t going to be shown on “the public airwaves” but on paid cable, which isn’t governed by the FCC.

The Fairness doctrine hasn’t been reinstated yet and was completely irrelevant to the case.

Perhaps you’re thinking of McCain-Feingold.

Beyond that, based on your logic, Michael Moore’s anti-George Bush documentary Fahrenheit 911 should have been sanctioned by the FEC.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@aNewLeaf

She’s a powerful, intelligent, independent woman who is outspoken and unwilling to subordinate herself.
It’s antithetical to everything the Hard Right espouses.

You just described Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin(minus the intelligent part).

[Marley23]

It’s kind of a win-win for Republicans. Either they get the movie killed or they have another excuse to do fewer debates- and in 2012 they all complained that they had way too many debates.

[Richard_Parker]

Win-win-win-win, I think.

You named two. The other two: (1) challenging the librul media riles up the base and improves the image of the RNC to them; (2) there’s very little downside to playing the refs, and at least the marginal possibility that you’ll get some favorable coverage or attention to an issue you wouldn’t otherwise have gotten in the name of balance.

[Procrustus]

@Marley23

It’s kind of a win-win for Republicans. Either they get the movie killed or they have another excuse to do fewer debates- and in 2012 they all complained that they had way too many debates.

Do they need an excuse? It’s not like the public is clamering for dozens of debates.

[Richard_Parker]

The insurgent candidates (i.e., the Tea Party) are who clamors for more debates. The establishment candidates are the ones harmed (since they have to lean ever rightward in the debates).

[BigAppleBucky]

Didn’t CNN run a documentary on Romney last year?

I also seem to recall a documentary on Mormonism last year.

But I don’t seem to recall any Republicans complaining about those.

[Robot_Arm]

@Richard_Parker

(2) there’s very little downside to playing the refs,…

“That’s a nice convention you got there, Republicans. It’d be a shame if we wasn’t to televise it.”

[Sitnam]

This isn’t about suppressing Hillary’s chances for a presidential run, there isn’t an American voter unfamiliar with her or who’s opinion of her will change with this documentary, whatever is said in it.

This is about seeding the idea only FOX News is fair to conservatives. If the American public believes the ‘real truth’ is even somewhere between FOX and other news channels it’s already advantage GOP.