Tag Archives: c-span

Third Party Success: Candidate Only Spent $36 on Campaign


Bob Healey, who ran for Governor of Rhode Island on the Moderate Party ticket, only spent $36 on his entire campaign.

According to Ballot Access News, Healey had “the best percentage of the vote for any minor party gubernatorial candidate in 2014.” So, even on a shoestring budget, he had some success.

PolitiFact investigated Healey’s claim and found it to be factual.

“I probably should have spent twice as much. I would have doubled my numbers and maybe be the governor,” said Healey on local radio.

Though he didn’t win, Healey still received 21.43 percent of the vote, which means that the Moderate Party will be ballot-qualified for the 2016 and 2018 elections.

Bob Healey spent $0.0005 for every vote which is a huge success.

Healey’s success was boosted by having equal access to a televised debate. See here.

Unfortunately, there were so many third-party candidates this year who were not invited to a televised debate.

C-SPAN reportedly retracted an agreement to air a gubernatorial debate in Colorado according to FreeandEqual.org. C-SPAN did not return our call for comment.

C-SPAN is publicly funded with tax payer dollars so why did they choose to air the debate with a third-party candidate in R.I. but not in C.O?

According to FreeandEqual.org’s website:

“Per C-SPAN’s request, Free and Equal overnighted an external hard drive to their offices — C-SPAN paid for the postage. A week later after leaving several messages, Free and Equal had not heard back from Ms. Rice. Free and Equal founder Christina Tobin contacted C-SPAN’s Steve Scully, senior executive producer, who said that he would look into the issue, and would put the video up on C-SPAN’s website. He followed up to say that C-SPAN would not air the debate, contrary to the original agreement. He first said it was because the major candidates did not attend. Then he said it was because they didn’t have room in their program schedule. Then he changed it to C-SPAN does not air material filmed by outside organizations, except for news organizations, despite the fact that the debate was was produced by news organizations Free Speech TV and the Open Media Foundation, in part for C-SPAN’s sake.”

FreeandEqual.org stated, “This is a direct contradiction of C-SPAN’s mission statement “To provide elected and appointed officials and others who would influence public policy a direct conduit to the audience without filtering or otherwise distorting their points of view.” Honest media is designed to remove political bias, providing viewers with a free and equal platform of choice. By preventing voters from hearing all ballot-qualified candidates, the media tilts the outcome of elections towards the establishment candidates and political parties. C-SPAN is taxpayer funded, a further mandate for impartiality and giving all candidates an equal voice. Americans turn to C-SPAN to hear from the voices who are ignored by corporate media.”

Should Third-Party candidates have equal access to televised debates as the two major parties do? Please comment below.

C-Span’s Washington Journal Interviews Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

C-Span’s Washington Journal invited Richard Gage to talk about his group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The group questions the official reports regarding the collapse of building 7 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology or (NIST). The lead investigator of NIST, Shyam Sunder said,  “WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires.”

According to the host, C-Span decided to devote an entire segment to the collapse of building 7 because they received so many callers commenting on the topic regardless of the segment.

Last year investigative journalist Ben Swann spoke with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in the video below: