Although 13 independent or minor-party candidates running for federal or statewide office qualified for the Iowa ballot this year, only Democratic and Republican candidates for governor, U.S. Senate, and the third Congressional district have been invited to televised debates. After each of these events, I’ve seen comments on social media complaining that third-party candidates were denied the opportunity to speak directly to voters.

Libertarian nominee for secretary of state Jake Porter announced yesterday that he “is filing an open records request on Iowa Public Television (IPTV) regarding an episode of Iowa Press that was recorded on Friday, October 3 […] The open records request will look into possible collusion and violations of Iowa law to keep him out of the debate.” I’ve posted the full press release from Porter after the jump.

According to Porter, Iowa Public Television claimed that edition of “Iowa Press” was not a debate. The program in question was presented as a “job interview” for Democrat Brad Anderson and Republican Paul Pate. It sure looked like a debate to me. The format was virtually identical to programs Iowa Public Television billed as debates between Dave Loebsack and Mariannette Miller-Meeks in IA-02, and between Staci Appel and David Young in IA-03 (excluding an independent and a Libertarian candidate who are also running for Congress in that district). The main difference was that the Congressional debates were one-hour special programs, whereas the “Iowa Press” show featuring Anderson and Pate was the usual 30 minutes long, aired at the usual time. So was last month’s show featuring Attorney General Tom Miller and his Republican challenger Adam Gregg.

I sympathize with Porter’s frustration, because unlike some third-party candidates, he has been running for a long time and has staked out substantive and relevant policy positions. He was included in the 2010 “Iowa Press” program alongside Democratic Secretary of State Michael Mauro and his GOP challenger Matt Schultz.

I doubt Porter will get far in any legal action against Iowa Public Television. A 1998 U.S. Supreme Court ruling held that “public television stations have the right to choose which political candidates appear in the debates they broadcast.” They can exclude candidates they deem to be on the fringe, with little campaign infrastructure or public support. I’ve enclosed below more details on that case. Click here to download a scholarly analysis of that ruling.

I suspect Iowa Public Television would have invited Porter to participate in this year’s “job interview” if not for Spencer Highland, the unknown candidate representing the unknown “New Independent Party Iowa” who also qualified to run for secretary of state. Offering four candidates equal time on a half-hour show would be unwieldy, especially since Highland has not given the media any reason to take him seriously as a candidate for this office. Limiting the show to the two major-party candidates may have seemed easier to justify than inviting Anderson, Pate, and Porter but not Highland.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

October 12 press release from Jake Porter:

Open Records Request Filed On IPTV Regarding Debate Exclusion

Council Bluffs, Iowa-This morning, the Libertarian candidate for Iowa Secretary of State, Jake Porter, announced that he is filing an open records request on Iowa Public Television (IPTV) regarding an episode of Iowa Press that was recorded on Friday, October 3 which featured a debate between his two opponents. The open records request will look into possible collusion and violations of Iowa law to keep him out of the debate.

Iowa Public Television claimed the episode of Iowa Press was not a debate according to an e-mail sent to Porter and they informed him that they did not set any criteria and that he was not invited. In 2010, Porter was included in an IPTV candidate forum with his two opponents when he previously ran for Secretary of State.

“It was amazing that they had a debate between my opponents that discussed fair elections and these two candidates didn’t even have the courage to stand up for a fair debate. If they don’t even have the courage to stand up to IPTV over a debate how can they be trusted to stand up for fair elections?” asked Porter.

Porter also said that an open records request would assist him any in future legal action against Iowa Public Television, staff, and their Board of Directors. “I’m not a litigious man. That is why I have lawyers.” said Porter.

In 2010, Porter received 33,854 votes in the general election, covering the margin of Republican Matt Schultz’s victory over Democrat Michael Mauro. Porter earned his Bachelors Degree in Business Administration from AIB College of Business in Des Moines. After graduating from AIB, Porter moved to Nebraska where he worked as a retail store manager. Today, Porter lives in Council Bluffs and handles customer care issues for Yahoo.

Porter will face Democrat Brad Anderson and Republican Paul Pate in the general election.

For more information about Jake Porter please visit:

www.jakeporter.org

From a Washington Post article by Joan Biskupic, published on May 19, 1998:

The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 yesterday that public television stations have the right to choose which political candidates appear in the debates they broadcast. The decision could affect elections around the country because independent candidates frequently rely on public television as their best chance to reach voters and gain crucial name recognition.

Closely followed by broadcasters, civil libertarians and politicians, the case was considered an important test of First Amendment rights. It offered a striking conflict between the free speech rights of broadcasters, who want journalistic control over what their stations air, and those of candidates who fear they could be excluded merely for having unpopular views. Independent candidates insisted that when a state-run television station includes only the Democratic and Republican nominees, it unfairly endorses the entrenched two-party system.

But the Supreme Court said that if state-owned stations were forced to include in public debates candidates they believed had little public support or interest, the stations probably would simply decide to cancel the events altogether. […]

In determining who to allow to participate in a debate, the court said that a public TV station’s decision need only be reasonable and based on neutral journalistic principles.

The court rejected the view that a state-run broadcast station creates a “public forum” with great access when it sponsors a debate and said, rather, that public broadcasters have journalistic considerations that necessarily lead them to screen candidates.

The case began when Ralph P. Forbes, a former member of the American Nazi Party who ran in 1992 as a congressional candidate from Arkansas, was kept out of a debate sponsored by the Arkansas Educational Television Network because the network thought he lacked public support. […]

Richard D. Marks, who represented the Arkansas public television station in Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, said yesterday, “In many states, public TV is a crucial cultural institution. If it is going to be, as it now is, allowed to function as part of the free press, it must be able to give a depth and vibrancy to political coverage in the country.”