[QUOTE=elelle]
Frank, read the link. Kucinich was asked to participate by NBC for this debate, and, at the last minute, by the network going through a pretty amazing feat of court, not allowed. That’s not a normal course of attrition. Why did NBC go through that extreme measure?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, you should read this link (.pdf), which is the Nevada Supreme Court order reversing the District Court. (In reading the order, just ignore all of the stuff about writs of prohibition and mandamus, which is about the procedural method by which the case came up to the Supreme Court–you can start with the substance on Page 3.)
The Supreme Court ruled on three grounds. First, the Supreme Court held that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction, because the Federal Communication Act can only be enforced by the FCC, not a private person like Kuzinich. Second, the Supreme Court held that there was no valid contract between Kuzinich and NBC because there wasn’t consideration (a legal term meaning something of value) given by each party. Although NBC gave Kuzinich an invitation, that invitation was not a contract and NBC could revoke the invitation because Kuzinich had not given anything of value to get the invitation. Third (though this was only a footnote as it was cumulative), the lower court’s order prohibiting NBC from broadcasting the debate without Kuzinich was an unconstitutional prior restraint on publication in violation of NBC’s free press rights under the First Amendment.
On the substance and as a matter of policy, I was disturbed by the lower court’s ruling and think the Supreme Court did exactly the right thing. NBC – like all other private news organizations – has the right to publish (broadcast) what it wants, and though I disagree with the viewpoint of some publishers and broadcasters, I would be horrified if the government tried to override their editorial control. Further, the debate was broadcast on the MSNBC cable channel, not the public airwaves, so the fairness doctrine and questions of use of public resources do not apply. The debate was sponsored by the Nevada Democrats, also a private organization, with strong (perhaps overwhelming) First Amendment rights to advance the candidates they see fit. If a political party dies not want an individual candidate to participate in some or all of their processes, I would be aghast at the government requiring them to put someone in.
As a voter, I also appreciate that Kuzinich was excluded. I want to hear the competing views of the viable candidates. When my primary rolls around on February 5, I’ll be choosing between Clinton and Obama (or perhaps Edwards), and I have no interest in throwing my vote away on Kuzinich. I particularly have no interest in giving him a forum to throw barbs at the viable candidates while they are studiously trying to ignore him. Kuzinich was given a seat at the table at the myriad debates leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire, and it garnered him virtually no votes. No reasonable person would believe that he has any shot at breaking out of the low single digits in any other state. If he had gotten any traction in Iowa or New Hampshire, or was seen as viable in the national polls, NBC would have included him. As it is, as a campaign nonentity I don’t want him taking any time away from the candidates I might consider as potentially the next President of the United States.
If you’re a Kuzinich supporter or someone who believes that any view should be represented no matter how marginal, you’re free to say what you like in your own media outlet, and buy one if you don’t have one already. However, the major news organization can choose to show what and who they want to attract the viewers that pay the bills.
I would, however, caution you about the risks of supporting a radical, out of the mainstream candidate. If you will recall, some years ago a certain Mr. Nader ran as a independent candidate for President on the platform that the major parties were both equally tools of corporate interests, and as he perceived no difference between them, you should make a protest vote for his left wing anti-corporate candidacy because it mattered little which of the big parties won. A small but consequential number of people were seduced by his campaign, and almost certainly drew sufficient votes away from a more mainstream candidate, a certain Mr. Gore, so that he ultimately lost the electoral vote by reason of a few hundred vote deficiency in Florida. This permitted the winning candidate, a certain Mr. Bush, to demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that yes, yes indeed, there was a difference between the major parties.