In Arizona, members of the local Libertarian Party recently filed a lawsuit against Arizona State University, which will host the third presidential debate. The lawsuit alleges that by spending nearly $2 million dollars for the debate, the state (through the public institution) is making an illegal campaign contribution to both parties.

One of the attorneys behind the lawsuit, David Euchner, said that "Arizona recognizes three political parties ... A debate including only two of the three candidates is a partisan campaign commercial, and an illegal donation to partisan political associations."

Euchner's remarks seem to match with much of the opinion I've heard about the first debate. Many people I know feel that it was not so much a debate as side-by-side campaign speeches.

This case does raise some interesting points about the debates. The organization that is responsible for the debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates, was established by an agreement between the Democratic and Republican parties. This fact has many people claiming that the Commission is just a tool of both parties and increases the difficulty for third-party candidates to get national exposure.

The Commission on Presidential Debates does have a policy for determining eligibility. It requires a valid candidate, being on enough ballots to have a theoretical chance to win enough electoral votes, and at least 15% popularity in national polls.

The point of the Libertarian Party's case in Arizona, however, is not that the Commission is somehow conspiring to keep them from the debates.
In Arizona, only three candidates will be listed on the ballot: George Bush, John Kerry, and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik. The lawsuit alleges that since the Libertarian Party is one of only three on the ballot, the state of Arizona recognizes it as a party.

This is where the idea of the debates as speeches comes into play. By putting $2 million toward the debate, which does not include the Libertarian Party, the argument is that Arizona is making a large campaign contribution to both of the major parties.

I believe this is a valid point, especially given that the first debate, at least, was used as a chance for each candidate to repeat their positions. This is not to say the debates are not important; a candidate's ability to perform well in that sort of situation is representative of their ability to think quickly and clearly.

Should public money be used to effectively fund this sort of thing, however? Some may argue that the debate is a public service, and so yes, public money should be used. What about third-party candidates? The argument for having eligibility requirements for the debate is to keep them from getting out of hand with too many candidates. In Arizona, however, there are only three recognized candidates.

Does this case involve a state using public money to unfairly and illegally make a campaign contribution to the Democrats and Republicans? I believe it does, as there are three candidates, yet only two are getting any effect of the $2 million.