CEI Today: Towering Federal Register, IRS scandal & gov't unions, and EPA discrimination

REGULATIONS - WAYNE CREWS & RYAN YOUNG

Daily Caller: The towering Federal Register

This week marks the publication of the 20th anniversary edition of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s annual survey of the federal regulatory state, Ten Thousand Commandments. The report takes a big-picture look at the cost and scope of federal regulations. Among other eye-popping numbers, this year’s edition estimates the total federal regulatory burden at $1.8 trillion per year and growing — the first time ever that the cost of regulation has exceeded half the size of the federal budget.

cei.org/10kc

See also: Wall Street Journal editorial, Red Tape Record Breakers

> Interview Wayne Crews

IRS SCANDAL & GOV'T UNIONS - MATT PATTERSON Workplacechoice.org: IRS-Gate: Time to End Government Unions In the American Spectator, Jeffrey Lord has been tracking what he considers may be a smoking gun:  A meeting between National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley and Obama at the White House on Wednesday, March 31st of 2010.  Time will tell if this is mere coincidence, or some nefarious plot emanating from the Oval Office to intimidate the President’s political adversaries into silence. As frightening as it is, the I.R.S. scandal is but one example of the sinister cycle that plays out year after year at all levels of government:  A union representing government workers helps elect politicians who promise to increase the power and wealth of those government workers.  > Read more > Interview Matt Patterson

EPA DISCRIMINATES National Review: The EPA’s Conservative Problem The EPA has an IRS problem. The agency has rubber-stamped fee-waiver requests from environmentalist groups seeking information, but it denied similar requests from conservative groups, an extensive examination of EPA correspondence suggests. It’s the latest instance in which federal agencies have used their executive authority against perceived political opponents. The Competitive Enterprise Institute obtained 1,200 pages of EPA correspondence between January 1, 2012, and April 26, 2013, in circumstances that appear to indicate the process is handled unfairly. > Read more > Interview Christopher Horner

MORE IN THE NEWS... Congress Should Dramatically Simplify the Tax Code and Abolish the IRS Chicago Teachers Union: We Decide When Your Kids Learn Minnesota DFLers Attempt to Payback Big Labor

CEI ANNUAL DINNER & GALA FEATURING THE HONORABLE RAND PAUL JUNE 20, 2013 cei.org/ceidinner

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org.  Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

APPLY TODAY! Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellowship CEI offers a one-year fellowship for journalists seeking to improve their knowledge of the principles of free markets and limited government.  cei.org/warrenbrookes Contact: chall@cei.org

INTERVIEW A CEI EXPERT CEI Experts by Issue Advancing Capitalism Constitutional andLegal Issues Energy and Environment Finance and Entrepreneurship Health and Safety Labor Nanny State Regulatory Reform Tech and Telecom Trade and International Transportation

   

Coalition of NH Municipalities File Motion to Intervene on LGC Supreme Court Appeal

Towns of Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem NH

Coalition of Municipalities File Motion to Intervene with NH Supreme Court on Appeal of the Local Government Center, Inc. (LGC) CASE No. 2012-0729

Allege LGC Discriminatory Business Practices in Return of Ordered Surplus Funds

1/17/13

The Towns of Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem, NH, on behalf of a coalition of fourteen municipalities (Auburn, Bennington, Canaan, Durham, Greenfield, Henniker, Lyndeborough, Meredith, Northfield, Peterborough, Plainfield, Raymond, Salem and Temple), today have filed a motion to intervene in the Appeal of the Local Government Center, Inc. v. NH Bureau of Securities Regulation case presently before the NH Supreme Court. 

The action marks an unfortunate turn of events in which municipal taxpayer funds are now being diverted to litigate the very organization charged with representing the interests of towns and cities across NH, as well as the public agency charged with regulating it.

The Bureau of Securities Regulation (BSR) found wrongdoing in the management of the Local Government Center’s risk pools. It ordered millions of dollars held by the Local Government Center (LGC) to be returned to current members of the pools.

Durham Administrator Todd Selig states, “The BSR, however, did not distinguish among members. Some joined the risk pools early or late, some left early or late, and some joined, left, and later rejoined. By ordering the money returned to current members, it created windfalls for some, but inadequate recompense for others. That is, some members will receive an arbitrarily larger share than their contribution, and some an arbitrarily smaller share.”

To fix this, the four towns have petitioned the NH Supreme Court to allow them to intervene, and to address the hearings officer’s failure to fashion a remedy that will allow refunds in proportion to members’ contributions. Due to the dates they joined and left, these four – Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem – believe they represent all members whose share of the refund will be inadequate compared to the share of the money they contributed.

LGC Case Background & Details on Coalition of Communities' Petition to NH Supreme Court

In the Order dated August 16, 2012, State of NH hearings officer Donald Mitchell found that the Local Government Center (LGC) had engaged in actions or inactions that resulted in multiple violations of RSA 5-B. 

These statutory violations, which commenced in 2003 and continued through 2010, were attributable to, amongst other things, a failure by LGC to distribute to Trust members on an annual basis excess earnings and surplus, improper transfers of monies from the Health Care Trust and Property Liability Trust to the Workers Compensation Trust, and a transfer of the Health Care Trust’s and Property Liability Trust’s respective interests in real estate to the Local Government Center Real Estate Inc. without consideration.

Salem Town Manager Keith Hickey states, “In sum, the Order found that but for these illegal actions, there would have been additional excess earning and surplus that would be available to return to LCG members on an annual basis – members such as Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem.”

The Order: What The LGC Has To Pay Back

$33.2 million from HealthTrust

$17.1 million the Property-Liability pool siphoned from HealthTrust

$3.1 million from Property-Liability for communities that joined after June 14, 2010

Total: $53.4 million

As no agreement was presented to the hearings officer within 30 days of the Order as required, the LGC proposes to issue refunds to those who were members of its Health and Property Liability Trusts as of 8/16/12, the date of the Order. 

Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem contend that such a refund would not meet the standard articulated in the Order that refunds shall be “in proportion to each member’s contributions to that standing amount of earnings and surplus.” 

Durham Administrator Todd Selig states, “The return of tens of millions of dollars by the LGC to its members of the Health Trust and Property-Liability Trust programs is mandated by the hearing officer’s order to be in proportion to each member’s contributions.  Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, Salem and other political subdivisions contributed to the surplus with taxpayer funds.  Those funds should therefore be returned.  It is an issue of basic fairness and equity -- no more, no less.”

Durham, Peterborough, Salem and many other political subdivisions would have been able to recoup a refund had its operative date been June 14, 2010 – the date set by the Order if the BSR and LGC reached an agreement.

Northfield and many other political subdivisions who left the LGC prior to June 14, 2010 would have been able to recoup a refund had the remedy required a re-calculation of surplus on an annual basis, with the surplus distributed annually, based on annual membership rolls and the premiums paid by members and former members each year.

The NH Supreme Court has equity jurisdiction to fashion a refund remedy that is in proportion to each member’s contributions to that standing amount of earnings and surplus.

Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem and scores of other political subdivisions across NH contributed to the creation of the illegal LGC surplus, but per the terms of the Order and the position taken by the LGC, they are not eligible to participate in the distribution of surplus because they terminated their Trust membership prior to 8/16/12. 

Northfield Town Administrator Glenn Smith states, “The municipalities have requested the NH Supreme Court to determine an equitable approach to distributing the surplus generally requiring the LGC to calculate the amount of surplus that accrued each year from the year that the LGC first unlawfully retained excess surplus, and to allocate the surplus proportionally amongst the members of the Trusts by year.” 

“Such an annual, proportional remedy calculation could be applied and would be equitable,” states Town Manager Hickey.

Peterborough Town Administrator Pam Brenner states, “The information provided by the LGC in response to Durham, Peterborough, and Salem’s RSA 91-A request reveals that in any given year, the membership of the Trusts changed.  Awarding the refund based on the August 16, 2012 Order date does not capture accurately the amounts that Trust members contributed to the Trusts over the time that the surplus accrued.”

Selig states, “Public employees paid a significant portion of the health care premiums, and presumptively they will receive from their employers a corresponding portion of any health care surplus refund payment.  The existence of such public employee health care premium contributions underscores the importance of achieving an accurate and equitable distribution of any Trust surplus.  Only the NH Supreme Court can remedy the inherently inequitable situation at this juncture.”

Durham, Northfield, Peterborough, and Salem, as Intervenors, have requested of the NH Supreme Court that their Motion be granted, and that they be allowed to brief before the NH Supreme Court two issues:

1.  Whether the hearings officer erred in failing to fashion a remedy that will allow that refunds shall be in proportion to each member’s and former member’s contributions to that standing surplus amount and earnings?

2.  Whether the NH Supreme Court should exercise its equitable powers to fashion a remedy that the calculation and refund of any surplus shall be in proportion to each member’s or former member’s annual contribution to said illegal surplus, or such other equitable remedy as the Court shall see fit?

In December 2012, the towns of Auburn, Bennington, Canaan, Durham, Greenfield, Henniker, Lyndeborough, Meredith, Northfield, Peterborough, Plainfield, Raymond, Salem and Temple filed a formal complaint regarding LGC discriminatory business practices with the NH Bureau of Securities Regulation.

Subsequent to the filing with the BSR, the Bureau of Securities Regulation’s outside counsel, Andru Volinsky told Annmarie Timmins of the Concord Monitor, “The bureau will need to look at this…There is nothing in the law that says you have to be a member to get your surplus back.”

Town Administrator Pam Brenner states, “To date, the Towns have received no formal response from the BSR.”

The motion to intervene filed by Concord Appeals Attorney Joshua L. Gordon may be found on line at http://appealslawyer.net/do/briefs/Petition_to_Intervene_w_appx.pdf. 

Twelve Municipalities File Formal Complaint with NH Bureau of Securities Regulation Citing Discriminatory Local Government Center (LGC) Business Practices

Towns of Durham and Peterborough, NH

PRESS RELEASES

Twelve Municipalities File Formal Complaint with NH Bureau of Securities Regulation Citing

Discriminatory Local Government Center (LGC) Business Practices

12/10/12

Dissatisfaction with the New Hampshire Local Government Center’s proposal to “refund” more than $52 million in surplus funds that the NH Bureau of Securities Regulations hearings officer has ordered to be returned to NH municipalities and school districts has prompted a dozen municipalities to file a formal complaint with the NH Bureau of Securities Regulation.

The towns of Peterborough and Durham, along with ten other municipalities (Auburn, Bennington, Canaan, Greenfield, Henniker, Lyndeborough, Northfield, Plainfield, Raymond and Temple), have written a December 7, 2012 letter to Director Glennon of the NH Bureau of Securities pointing out that the LGC’s proposed refund through the issuance of future insurance premium “holidays” to current LGC members will not include those municipalities and school districts that contributed to the creation of the surplus funds, but that have recently left the LGC and taken their insurance business elsewhere.

Peterborough Town Administrator Pam Brenner and Durham Administrator Todd Selig state that the letter to the Bureau of Securities Regulation calls attention to the discriminatory effect of the LGC’s proposed refund that fails to return cash to the former LGC members.  Ms. Brenner and Mr. Selig indicate that there are at least 20 NH municipalities and school districts that are in the same position as Peterborough and Durham: they were members of the LGC when the illegal surpluses were allowed to accumulate, but the reimbursement of a pro rata share of the surplus funds to these former LGC members is not being proposed by the LGC.  This is patently unfair to local taxpayers from these communities whose annual insurance premiums to the LGC were utilized to amass significant illegal reserves by the organization, one of the largest public risk pools in the nation.

The New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office, through the Bureau of Securities Regulation, argued LGC practices were illegal.  They contended that the LGC was amassing money by overcharging cities, towns, and school districts for health insurance and not returning enough surplus to member communities. Hearing officer Donald Mitchell agreed.  In August 2012, he ordered the LGC to return more than $52 million to communities. 

The Order: What The LGC Has To Pay Back

$33.2 million from HealthTrust

$17.1 million the Property-Liability pool siphoned from HealthTrust

$3.1 million from Property-Liability for communities that joined after June 14, 2010

Total: $53.4 million

Selig, Brenner, and the other municipalities find the notion that communities, and more specifically local taxpayers, cannot receive a refund in cash and that entities have to be a continuing customer of the LGC organization to participate in the surplus refund to be an incredible and outrageous position.  It is patently unfair to local taxpayers.

The municipalities have called upon Director Glennon and the Bureau to investigate this discriminatory refund proposal.  Ms. Brenner and Mr. Selig state that it is common sense that since the LGC had an obligation to perform an audit and an actuarial analysis of the insurance programs, and then refund any surplus funds on an annual basis, the refund of funds should be calculated on an annual basis and credited to the members of these insurance program on an annual basis.  The refund process must both be fair and transparent.  Municipalities, school districts, and their employees were contributors to these insurance programs on an annual basis.  The premiums were calculated on an annual basis, and the contributions to pay for the premiums were made on an annual basis.  Each year, the identity of those municipalities and school districts that were members of the insurance programs changed. 

These municipalities believe that after all of the problems with LGC programs that have been identified by the BSR, is it asking too much to have a plan to refund the surplus to the taxpayers of members communities, by year of participation, in cash?  Is it asking too much to get the refund right so that taxpayers of communities that contributed to the illegal LGC surplus receive their fair share of the ordered refund?

Peterborough, Durham, and the other affected communities await a prompt response from the Bureau of Securities Regulation and the LGC on this important fairness issue.

CEI Today: Obama regulatory onslaught, China vs. EU, and Employment Non-Discrimination Act

OBAMA REGULATORY ONSLAUGHT - MYRON EBELL

Charleston Daily Mail: Obama’s war on resource industries -Mining companies are being targeted across the board

As much as President Barack Obama claims to be concerned about jobs for Americans, he has a strange way of showing it.

Three recent actions in Alaska, West Virginia, and Arizona reveal the astonishing ways in which the Obama administration is twisting our nation's environmental laws in order to block natural resource production, and destroy jobs in the process. > Read the full commentary on Dailymail.com

>Interview Myron Ebell

> See related:

EPA's phony job numbers

Sen. Inhofe Seeks to Rein in EPA’s All Pain and No Gain Utility MACT

CHINA VS. EU - FRAN SMITH Openmarket.org: China Takes Hard Stance on EU’s Airline Emissions Charges It looks like it could begin a trade war — in airplanes. China has announced that it may impound European Union airplanes in retaliation if the EU seizes their planes because China won’t comply with the EU’s draconian carbon emissions data and trading system. The EU has imposed a carbon tax on emissions including those from foreign airplanes that land or take off from the EU. What’s really astonishing is that the charges would be made on all emissions from the whole trip, that is, is a plane took off from Beijing and landed in Frankfurt, Germany, the airline would pay the tax for the emissions during the 4,863-mile journey. According to the EU’s mandate, countries had until March 31 of this year to submit data on their carbon emissions. But Chinese airlines said they are not going to collect and hand over the data. > View the full commentary on Openmarket.org > Interview Fran Smith > Also by Fran Smith: WSJ: Senate May Vote on Needed Sugar Reform Amendment

EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT - HANS BADER Openmarket.org: Employment Non-Discrimination Act Makes as Little Sense as Chemotherapy for a Cold American business is quite happy to hire gay and lesbian employees, and needs no federal mandate to do so. Virtually all Fortune 500 companies already ban sexual orientation discrimination in their own hiring and firing, and have done so for years. But on June 12, a Senate Committee held a hearing to promote a bill, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), that would hold private employers liable for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in punitive damages and attorneys fees if a judge or jury later decides they committed discrimination based on sexual orientation. > Read the full commentary on Openmarket.org > Interview Hans Bader

Also featuring... Senate Deliberates on Vote to Check EPA’s All Pain and No Gain Utility MACT Jamie Dimon and the “Just Fine” Private Sector Legislators Seek to Create New, Unnecessary Protected Class: Gun Owners CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week in Regulation CEI Podcast for June 13, 2012: Smarter Transportation Funding When the federal government gives out transportation funding to the states, it attaches a lot of strings. The solution, according to Land-use and Transportation Policy Analyst Marc Scribner, is to get the federal government out of the transportation business and devolve it to the states. In the just-released CEI study “Fixing Surface Transportation in Massachusetts: A Path Forward under a Devolved Federal Funding Scenario,” Scribner argues that by following a user-pays, user-benefits principle, states can raise revenue and maintain infrastructure more efficiently than the federal government can.

VIDEO: MAD MEN PITCH APOLOGY AD TO CEI

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org.  Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

Karger Files FEC Complaint Against Rupert Murdoch and Fox News

Karger Files 158 Page FEC Complaint Against Murdoch and Fox News
Requests FEC Investigation for Debate Exclusion

 
NEW YORK, NY - Presidential candidate Fred Karger today sent a 158 page sworn, notarized formal request for investigation to the Federal Election Commission in Washington, DC protesting his exclusion from Fox's GOP Presidential Debate last Thursday in Ames, Iowa.

Karger had more than met Fox News Channel's "pre-established objective criteria" when he hit the threshold of averaging 1 percent in 5 national polls on August 4, 2011. He communicated this to Fox executives and the other debate sponsors in two separate letters dated August 5, 2011 and August 8, 2011, ahead of the August 9, 2011 - 4:00 pm CDT cutoff.  Fox News Channel then changed its rules so that Karger could not join its debate.

Today at 11:00 am EDT, Karger personally delivered a copy of his formal complaint with attachments to Mr. Murdoch at his News Corporation offices in New York.

Fred Karger dropping off a copy of his FEC complaint and a letter for Rupert Murdoch this morning at News Corporation World Headquarters (owner of Fox News), 1211 Avenue of the Americas, NY, NY.

In separate letters (copies below) to Murdoch and other Fox executives as well as to the six FEC Commissioners, Karger and his attorneys stated their case for an immediate investigation of Fox.  The FEC was asked to expedite its investigation because Fox News is holding its next debate on September 22, 2011 in Orlando, Florida.

Karger stated in his letter to the FEC:

“I am the first openly gay major party candidate to ever run for President of the United States.  I have experienced many doors slammed in my face by individuals and outside political organizations during the past eighteen months, but this blatant affront by Fox News executives smacks of discrimination and I hope the Commission will investigate post-haste.”

---

August 18, 2011

Mr. Rupert Murdoch
Mr. Roger Ailes
Mr. Michael Clemente
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
    
Enclosed please find my 158 page signed and notarized complaint that was overnighted to the Federal Election Commission in Washington, DC today.  In it, I demonstrate that Fox News Channel changed its “pre-established, objective criteria” as soon as I submitted my August 5, 2011 letter proving that I had met all your requirements for participation in the August 11, 2011 debate in Ames, Iowa.  

Since I was not allowed to participate, the debate no longer appears exempt from federal campaign contribution laws.  That could mean that Fox News Channel has made illegal in-kind corporate contributions to the eight debate participants of upwards of $100 million.

Two hours of free primetime television to an audience of 5.1 million viewers, weeks of media coverage before and after the debate, facilities rental, the construction of the debate stage, salaries, travel, insurance, equipment, the filing room, the spin room and so much more would all amount to in-kind contributions to the eight presidential candidates.   

We tried repeatedly over a several week period to contact Fox News Channel personnel concerning my qualifications for the debate without success.  After I met your “pre-established objective criteria,” I wrote two letters; one on August 5th and the other August 8th and received no response.   My staff even called various Fox News Channel offices and bureaus repeatedly.  Still no response.

When I did not meet the criteria for your May 5, 2011 debate in Greenville, South Carolina I did not object. When I did not meet CNN’s very specific “pre-established objective criteria” for its June 13, 2011 debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, I did not object then either.  But when you changed the criteria after I qualified for the August 13th debate, I strongly object.  

That is why I have requested the Federal Election Commission investigate this entire matter.  The selection of the Republican nominee for President of the United States should be an open, honest and fair process.

We have received a tremendous amount of encouragement from thousands of supporters through online petitions and facebook comments.  Thousands more have reached out to us urging us to file this complaint with the FEC.  I cannot let them down.

We look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely,


Fred Karger

---

August 18, 2011

Chair Cynthia Bauerly
Commissioner Caroline Hunter
Commissioner Mathew Petersen
Commissioner Donald McGahn
Commissioner Steven Walter
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC  20463


Dear Commissioners:


Please find attached my 158 page sworn complaint against the Fox News Channel.  The respondents are Fox News executives; Messrs. Murdoch, Ailes and Clemente.  Because of the fast approaching date of Fox News’ next debate on September 22, 2011 in Orlando, Florida, I do hereby request an expedited Federal Election Commission investigation of my complaint.

Fox News Channel, the lead sponsor of last week’s Iowa Republican Presidential debate, released its “pre-established objective criteria” to participate in its debate to the Des Moines Register on July 23, 2011, approximately two weeks before the August 11th debate.  

      1. Registered with the Federal Elections Commission as a presidential exploratory committee or presidential campaign

      2. Meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements

      3. Garnered at least an average of one percent in five national polls based on most recent polling leading up to the registration day

On August 5, 2011, four days before its deadline, I met all Fox’s criteria with the release of a Harris Interactive national poll showing me at 2 percent.  I wrote to all of the debate sponsors that day to let them know I qualified.  


I was now in five recent national polls with an average of 1 percent.  Fox News Channel then changed its criteria just to keep me out.

As my attorneys and I read the Federal Election Campaign Act, by excluding me in spite of my having met its criteria, Fox News Channel has made in-kind contributions to the eight candidates who participated in the August 11, 2011.  

I am the first openly gay major party candidate to ever run for President of the United States.  I have experienced many doors slammed in my face by individuals and outside political organizations during the past eighteen months, but this blatant affront by Fox News executives smacks of discrimination and I hope the Commission will investigate post-haste.

I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future.  Thank you.

Best regards,


Fred Karger

---

August 18, 2011

Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20463

I want to bring to your attention possible violations of federal election campaign laws by the Fox News Channel, owned by News Corporation.  The participants for Fox News Channel’s August 11, 2011 televised Presidential Debate were not selected based on pre-established objective criteria.  Specifically, I was excluded from this debate even though I had met Fox News Channel’s criteria.   

I respectfully ask the Federal Election Commission to conduct a full investigation into the legality of the Fox News Channel’s August 11, 2011 Presidential Debate.

Complainant and Respondents

Complainant:

      Fred Karger
      3699 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1290
      
Los Angeles, CA 90010

Respondents:
      Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, News Corporation
      Roger Ailes, President, Fox News Channel

      Michael Clemente, Senior VP of News, Fox News

     
      Fox News Channel
      1211 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, New York 10036

Federal Election Laws Concerning Candidate Appearances

    

Federal election campaign laws allow for an organization exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code to sponsor a Presidential candidate meeting.  Such a meeting is an exception to the definition of contribution.  Applicable rules state that “The debates must be structured such that they do not promote or advance one candidate over another; and they must include at least two candidates, meeting face to face."

Additionally, “The organization staging the debate must select the candidates based on pre-established objective criteria."  A qualified organization can devise its own objective criteria.

Criteria

The Des Moines Register reported that the “pre-established objective criteria” that Fox News Channel used to select participants for the Iowa Presidential Debate on July 23, 2011, and then reaffirmed these criteria as final on August 3, 2011.  The criteria had to be met by Tuesday, August 9, 2011, 4:00 pm CDT.  In order to participate in the Fox News Debate, candidates must have:

      1. Registered with the Federal Elections Commission as a presidential exploratory committee or presidential campaign

      2. Meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements

      3. Garnered at least an average of one percent in five national polls based on most recent polling leading up to the registration day

Casey Mills, a spokesperson for the Republican Party of Iowa, a debate cosponsor, stated: “The barriers for entry are very low by design to make sure an inclusive list of candidates is featured on stage.”

Fred Karger Met All Criteria

I filed for President on March, 23, 2011 at the Federal Election Commission in Washington, DC; I meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements, and on Friday, August 5, 2011 I achieved the required polling criteria.  When I fulfilled the criteria, my campaign contacted all of the debate hosts to inform them.   A Harris Interactive Poll, which the Fred Karger for President campaign engaged Harris to perform, came out the day before, showing me at 2%.  That poll, averaged with four previous recent polls, brought me to the necessary average of 1% in five national polls.

2% in Harris Interactive Poll August 4th

1% in Zogby Poll July 25th

1% in Zogby Poll May 23rd

1% Fox News Poll April 28th

Less than 1% in McClathy-Marist Poll June 29th

After first contacting Fox News Channel, I polled at 1% in an additional Synovate poll, which was released on August 8, 2011.

Fox News Channel Response

The Des Moines Register and OutQ News on Sirius Satellite Radio, both reported that Fox News Channel released the following statement explaining why I would not be included in the debate:  

“None of the five polls cited by the Karger campaign help him meet the criteria of 1%”.  The August 4th Harris Interactive poll is an online survey. Such polls do not qualify for the purposes of meeting the debate criteria.  The July 25th Zogby poll is an online survey.  Such polls do not qualify for the purposes of meeting the debate criteria.  The May 23rd Zogby Poll is an online survey.  Such polls do not qualify for the purposes of meeting the debate criteria.  The April 28th Fox Poll is out of date. Fox offered up Mr. Karger’s name in polls conducted in June and July, but he did not register in either.  The June 29th McClatchy-Marist Poll shows Karger garnering “less than 1%.” The threshold is 1%.”

Criteria is re-established

Fox News Channel never released acceptable polling companies or acceptable polling methodology in its pre-established objective criteria.

It appears that because I met their originally stated criteria, Fox News changed their criteria in order to exclude me. That is in direct violation of the Federal Election Commission regulations.  The criteria must be “pre-established,” and may not be changed.

CNN Debate

By comparison, CNN, the sponsor of the New Hampshire Debate on June 5, 2011 used much more stringent polling criteria for its debate.  CNN required a candidate to poll at 2% in an average of three national surveys during a one-month period, and only from a specific list of eligible polls.  

Polling Criteria

Fox News Channel regularly publishes and cites Zogby and Harris Interactive polls, both of which are conducted online.  This is a new way national polling firms conduct polls.  Many experts consider online polls even more accurate than telephone polling because they take away the human element.  

Fox News Channel even reported on a Zogby poll that was one of the five to allow me to achieve the 1% threshold that Fox News Channel later dismissed: Fox News Story and Zogby Poll Source. Fox News Channel has cited many other Zogby Presidential Polls conducted online: Christie & Perry vs. Romney, Christie and Cain and Christie Trounces Field.  Fox News Channel also regularly cites Harris Interactive Polls as well: Obama's Popularity, Gays are more frequent Blog users and Sony vs. Apple.  Also, Fox News Channel has cited Synovate polls conducted online.

In all of its coverage of Harris Interactive and Zogby polls, Fox News Channel never stated that these polls were conducted online or that Fox News Channel viewed them to be less accurate than any other poll.  Then, why now?  

Nate Silver of the New York Times analyzed the top polling companies and found Harris Interactive to be one of the most reliable. The International Journal of Market Research analyzed online polling of 72 different political races in one election cycle and found that Harris Interactive Online Polls are "twice as accurate as its general telephone polling competition."

Double Standard?

Fox News Channel claims that its own April 29, 2011 poll (the first national poll to include Fred Karger) is “out of date” because subsequent Fox News Polls had me at less than 1%.

Fox News Channel’s Iowa Debate polling criteria are identical to the criteria that Fox News Channel used for the South Carolina Fox News Debate held on May 5, 2011.  Fox News Channel accepted Gary Johnson for that debate, even though the April 20, 2011 Gallup Poll had him at 0%.  Fox News Channel had accepted previous Gallup polls from March 22, 2011 and February 20, 2011, which had Gary Johnson at 2% and 1% respectively. (Sources: Politico.com 2012 Presidential Polls and Polling Report - White House 2012)

Fox News Channel had to go back five months to November 14, 2010 to be able to include Gary Johnson in the South Carolina Debate by the time Fox News first stated Gary Johnson’s inclusion to the Daily Beast on the day of April 28, 2011. The Fox News Channel poll that I cited was released only three months before the deadline.  I have provided a timeline of all polls leading up to the South Carolina debate deadline.

Request for Investigation

I formally request a thorough and complete investigation into the Fox New Channel sponsorship and financing of its August 9, 2011 Presidential Debate held in Ames, Iowa.

Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,


Fred Karger
3699 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1290
Los Angeles, CA 90010

cc:  Distribution

I affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

April 28 - Fox News: 1% (Fox News had already provided a list of debate participants prior to the publication of this study and Gary Johnson was included.  Fox News had affirmed that Gary Johnson came in at 1% in five polls previous to this date.)

April 20, 2011 - Gallup -- Gary Johnson receives 0%

April 14, 2011  - McClathy-Marist -- Gary Johnson not included

April 10, 2011 - CNN -- Gary Johnson not included

April 5, 2011 - Fox News -- Gary Johnson receives 1%

April 4, 2011 - NBC/WSJ -- Gary Johnson not included

March 28, 2011 - Farleigh Dickson University -- Gary Johnson not included

March 22, 2011 – Gallup -- Gary Johnson receives 2%  

March 14, 2011 - Pew -- Gary Johnson not included

March 13, 2011 - CNN -- Gary Johnson not included

February 28, 2011 - NBC/WSJ -- Gary Johnson not included

February 20, 2011 – Gallup -- Gary Johnson receives 1% 

February 15, 2011 - Newsweek/Daily Beast -- Gary Johnson not included

January 23, 2011 - CNN -- Gary Johnson not included

January 16, 2011 - ABC/Washington Post -- Gary Johnson not included

December 16, 2010 - Clarus Research -- Gary Johnson not included  

November 15, 2010 - McClathy-Clarist -- Gary Johnson not included

November 15, 2010 - Quinnipiac -- Gary Johnson not included

November 14, 2010 – Gallup -- Gary Johnson receives 1%  

Fox News Cites Zogby Online Polls

"Zogby Poll: Cain takes Lead Over Romney," Fox News,  
    Corresponding Zogby Poll, which shows Fred Karger at 1%

 “Poll, Both Christie, Perry Trounce Romney,” Fox News
    Corresponding Zogby Poll, the June 21st section, which shows Fred Karger

“Poll, Christie Beats Obama,” Fox News
    Corresponding Zogby Poll, which shows Fred Karger

“Poll, Christie Crushing GOP Pack,” Fox News.
    Corresponding Zogby Poll, before Fred Karger was included

“Obama Approval Sinks 39%” Fox News.

“Poll, Clinton Loses to All Top GOP Candidates in a Direct Match-up”, Fox News

“Bill to Grant Native Hawaiians Sovereignty Passes House,” Fox News

“The Daily Bret – Fresh off the Vine,”  Fox News

“Sotomayor’s Confirmation Isn’t a Win for the White House,” Fox News.

“Sean Hannity: Media Silent as Obama Vacations from Health Care Debate”  Fox News    

Fox News Cites Harris Online Polls

“Poll:  Obama More Popular Than Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.” Fox News.

“Gays More Frequent Blog Readers, Social Networkers,” Fox News

“Money, Work are Top US Stressors, Survey Finds,” Fox News

“Americans Prefer Sony, Apple Brands; Microsoft’s Appeal Wanes,” Fox News

“Dem Proposes Letting People Opt Out of Health Insurance Mandate,” Fox News

“Tiger Still Scores,” Fox News

“For Real Estate, a Giant Spring Clearance Sale,” Fox News

“Tax Day 2011 – We Need a Flat Tax More Than Ever,” Fox News

“In Strauss-Kahn Case, DA weighs Limited Options” Fox News

“Hillary’s Star Appeal Fading”  Fox News

“Laws to Ban Driving Under the Influence of Texting” Fox News.

“Chicago Most Stressed City in US, Miami Least,” Fox News

Fox News Cites Synovate Polls

Synovate:

    “Can You Hear Me Now? Dates Vs. Cell Phones” Fox News

    “Looking for a Credit Card? It Pays to be Rich,” Fox News

    “Polls: Sweden’s Center-Right Government Poised for Re-Election” Fox News