I would like to correct an error in Adam White's column regarding the restriction of the presidential debate to only two candidates ("Ralph and Pat: Don't call us, we'll call you," DI, Oct. 3). White argued that "alternative candidates" (despite its air of dismissal, this term seems to mean candidates who, unlike Gush and Bore, offer voters an actual alternative) have no right to spots in the debate because the debate is government-sponsored.

In fact, the presidential debates are sponsored by the Presidential Debates Commission, a private entity controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties and funded by such corporations as Budweiser. In a lawsuit demanding admission to the debates, Nader argued that corporate sponsorship amounted to illegal campaign contributions. As the organization "Billionaires for Bush or Gore" points out, Budweiser (and Exxon and ADM and É ) doesn't care who you vote for; they've bought both "major" candidates and helped these candidates' parties prevent voters from knowing about any other candidates.

Don't take my word for it. After Nader was thrown out of the debate hall at U-Mass even though he had a ticket to attend the debate, Janet Brown, the executive director of the Debates Commission, offered this justification in the New York Times: She said that the event was a private one, sponsored by a private organization, and so Nader (or any other citizen) had no right to attend except at the organization's pleasure. Bought, paid, sold.

Carolyn McConnell

member, University of Iowa Students for Nader