Before the DNC’s dust-up with Bernie Sanders, Dems stifled another 2016 Candidate

As a little known 2016 presidential candidate, Lawrence Lessig had to move mountains to score the polling numbers required to qualify him for the Democratic debates. But as soon as he did, the DNC bumped up the requirements so he’d no longer be eligible.

Oh, and they changed the rules retroactively

And so the candidate who promised to “fix the corruption that has crippled Congress” was cleverly axed from the debates — by his own party.

The Republicans did it in 2012

The Republican Party gave Buddy Roemer the same treatment back in 2012. Roemer, a former Louisiana governor and congressman, made political corruption his keystone issue , and promised not to accept any campaign contributions exceeding $100. But the GOP systematically excluded Roemer from polls, and when he got the numbers to qualify for the debates anyway, they quickly changed the requirements to lock Roemer and his anti-corruption message out of the debates.

From obscurity to Enemy #1

Lessig, a Harvard law professor and political activist, was on a mission to “crack the corruption that holds Washington hostage.” Campaign finance was the lynchpin of his presidential bid. Even his campaign slogan was “Fix Democracy First.” The main difference between Lessig and other presidential hopefuls who speak to the issue of political corruption is that Lessig framed corruption as not just an issue but the issue — “the first issue” that until addressed will stymie progress on every problem facing America. “Until we end the corruption that cripples Congress, none of [the other candidates’] promises are even credible,” said Lessig, who wanted “to make this issue [institutionalized corruption] central to the 2016 presidential election.”

“What our Congress does has no relation to the views of the average voter. Our Congress, our democracy, is responsive to the views of the few, not the many. And how could it be otherwise when 400 families have given half the money in this election cycle so far.” ~Campaign finance reform activist and former 2016 presidential candidate Lawrence Lessig

Lessig was far from the brand-name recognition of other Democratic candidates, and his bid was a long shot to say the least. But his campaign managed to raise $1 million, primarily in small donations, in a matter of weeks. And Lessig reached 1% in polls done by NBC, Monmouth, Huffington Post, and YouGov. This happened less than 6 weeks before the November 14th debate, and was enough get him on the stage.

Not so fast, Lessig

The DNC didn’t like this, so they simply changed the rules. They retroactively moved the deadline for qualification, announcing that Lessig had needed to reach 1% in three major national polls more than six weeks before the debate – not within six weeks of it. It was then early November, and the DNC was telling Lessig he had needed to qualify back in October. Lessig explained: “Under the new rule, unless I can time travel, there is no way that I will qualify”.

Why would the DNC go to such lengths to shut out Lessig? Maybe they didn’t want 8.5 million Americans to hear Lessig “speak the truth openly and repeatedly about how crippled and corrupted Congress has become.”

Putting the kibosh on a proven winner

Roemer was far from a newbie to the political scene when he ran for president: he had served four terms in Congress before becoming governor of Louisiana.

But the Establishment did not approve

The Republican Party put the kibosh on Roemer using the same dirty trick Democrats pulled on Lessig: They changed the rules mid-game, raising the bar on debate qualification twice to keep it just out of reach for Roemer. When Roemer reached the required 1% in national polls, the threshold was raised to 2% — and when Roemer met that, additional criteria were added.

Even when 91% of Americans believe the influence of money in politics should be reduced, the two major parties are doing everything they can to stifle candidates who promise to do something about it.

If you’re a school kid, changing the rules of the game partway through is called cheating. Systematically stifling the political voices of those whose messages are threatening to the status quo? That’s called tyranny. Just saying.