Credit where credit is due

While much of the media unequivocally credited Barack Obama yesterday with being "the first presidential candidate to reject public funding since the creation of the post-Watergate campaign finance system" this assertion isn't entirely accurate. Some news outlets got it right: He's the first Democrat or Republican to do so.

The candidates of the Libertarian Party have taken a principled stand against public campaign funds, and have consistently refused to accept them. Libertarians feel that it's unethical to criticize government spending (and call for smaller government) while simultaneously accepting campaign financing. Libertarians also reject the idea that campaigns should be financed from the nation's Treasury; believing, instead, that a campaign should rise or fall on its own merits.

Unfortunately this means the Libertarians--already in a disadvantageous position--force themselves to face an even steeper electoral ascent. The Democrats and Republicans have intentionally created a system of election laws--at both the federal and state levels--that protect the failing two-party system while making it vastly more difficult for so-called "third parties" to compete with them. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known by the "McCain-Feingold" monicker, made this system even more restrictive in 2002. Despite being challenged by libertarian-leaning groups, among others, these laws were narrowly upheld by the Supreme Court. In addition, the Democrats and Republicans directly control the Commission on Presidential Debates; a bipartisan organization headed by Democrat and Republican lobbyists that control who can (and cannot) participate in the debates. This has had the consistent effect of ensuring that only a Democrat and a Republican are permitted to debate. The CPD is notorious for increasing or ignoring the qualification requirements anytime an alternative candidate nears or reaches these requirements, and the requirements are fundamentally flawed because they're based primarily on unscientific opinion polling.

When combined with the media's general disinterest in alternative presidential candidates (unless they make for a novel news piece, like a cat running for president) it's very difficult for new perspectives to be heard or evaluated by the electorate. Then, when and if they do receive attention, it's usually only to highlight their low polling numbers and inability to win. So long as legitimate candidates of truly national political parties are logically marginalized rather than given fair and impartial consideration; this trend will undoubtedly continue.

As George Washington once said: "The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

We're, unfortunately, failing to listen to George Washington's warning. We're letting party politics rule us, when we should be ruling ourselves.