Is IAVA a sacred cow to whom the law should not apply?

I feel obliged to link to an article where Gov. Gary Johnson's campaign makes statements regarding IAVA's exclusion of them on their Sept 7 televised Commander-in-Chief forum and the actions of his supporters relating to this exclusion. Here are a couple of statements from the campaign quoted in the article. "IAVA is a private organization and it is not for us to try to dictate what they do,” Hunter said. “What's important is for us to have an opportunity to communicate with veterans and let them know that a ticket comprised of two experienced, serious candidates, will seriously address veterans' issues and needs.” "Gov. Johnson applauded the work of IAVA and other leading (veterans groups) in America who are giving voice to the nation’s veterans, and reiterated his desire that supporters of his candidacy show respect and similar appreciation for that good work," Hunter said. When asked about the online protests, Hunter said that “we are not encouraging our supporters to harass anyone. We don't do that.” If anyone had asked me a week ago what I felt Gov. Johnson's official response would have been, this is pretty much what I would have predicted. It is in keeping with his nature and it was the smart thing to do politically. Although, unfortunately it is not fully representative of the situation or our efforts. To debate some points with Mr. Hunter: Many of us are veterans. Others still are or were members and donors to the IAVA who feel misrepresented. And several others are simply law abiding citizens who believe that non-profits (even ones who help veterans) should not be treated as sacred cows and should also adhere to the law, which prevents them from manipulating elections by controlling which "contestants for public office" the public is exposed to and which are not. Just as we would hold a thief accountable for breaking the law by stealing our property. We too hold IAVA accountable for breaking the law by failing to invite ALL legitimate candidates for elected office, thereby compromising the democratic process. We can and should heap praise upon them for helping veterans in all the ways that they have and do this too. I would add that the bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates is a private non-profit organization and that they are equally deserving of public scrutiny if not more so. As to the matter of harassment. This is a valid statement. But it is also a tricky one as the line between protest and harassment is not one that is easily drawn, as their application is highly subjective. So yes do not harass the IAVA. But protest with all due vigor. The IAVA was quick to post this article. Apparently they have decided it is preferable to turn the negative attention on us rather than acknowledge their own mistake and correct it. The quick drop in their star rating to 2.0 was quick to follow. So as you can imagine that was not recieved well. I'd expect to see them in the ones very soon. I'm going to make a suggestion that I think may not set well with many of you. Please keep an open mind. Just as the Commission for Presidential Debates has set an arbitrary limit of 15% support in what to date has been some highly questionably conducted polls https://ivn.us/2016/09/02/major-poll-used-cpd-drastically-samples-independents/. Many of us have ruled out Jill Stein's inclusion due to lower polling numbers and incomplete ballot access. In my opinion this is unfair and is rooted in bias to our own preferred candidate. Recognizing the fact that obtaining ballot access is also a very rigged game, she has enough ballot access to be capable of being elected, in my opinion that qualifies her as "a contestant for office." I will not be changing the petition to include her in the verbage. We have far too many signatures for that to be ethical. We are not changing track. This is simply me using my access to your inbox to suggest that it would be wise for us as individuals (not collectively) to ally with her supporters on the matter of debate inclusion and to support their initiatives to protest for her inclusion as well as Gary's. The election is lost if we are unable to overcome its rigged nature. Ask any Sanders supporter and they'll tell you all about it. In this we need all of their help almost as much as they need ours and our unification in spite of our prefered candidates differences would be a version of bipartisanship the media would not be able to ignore. Here are a series of protests being promoted by one of our petitions supporters Sean Declet to coincide with the Commander-in-Chief Forum. please consider participating if possible. https://www.facebook.com/OurRevolutionSWFL/events/