quote: Watching their bullying maneuvers and harassing lawsuits around the country, I marvel at the absence of condemnation by Sen. John F. Kerry or Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman.
Sen. Kerry told us that he would look into this situation seven weeks ago but we have not heard back from him yet. Around the same time, McAuliffe told me in a phone conversation that he actively approved of these organized efforts, one of which is ironically called the Ballot Project. He urged me to run only in the 31 states considered to be locked up by one of the two candidates.
Challenging the signatures of your rivals is an old political tactic, and when you're collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures, there are bound to be some that don't withstand scrutiny. But the Democrats are not just seeking compliance with harsh election laws. They are using dirty tricks to intimidate citizens.
That's the way it seemed to a 58-year-old supporter of ours in Oregon. On Aug. 12, 2004, she was at home with her two grandchildren when she answered a knock on her door and found a man and woman who she said began threatening her with jail if there was any false information on the petitions she was collecting for our ballot access. These people, who called themselves "investigators," were dispatched by a law firm that has worked extensively with Oregon trade unions that have supported Democratic candidates. In many states our signature gatherers have been subjected to similar treatment in what is clearly an orchestrated campaign.
And some people who merely signed Nader-Camejo petitions have also been pressured. One person in Nevada got a call from someone who urged him to admit that he was tricked into signing our petition. When the petition signer said he had signed voluntarily, the caller continued to try to persuade him to claim that he had not signed the petition. After numerous requests, the caller identified himself and admitted he was from the Democratic National Committee in Las Vegas. A call to the number on the caller ID was answered, "Hello, DNC." We have similar reports from around the country.
Ballot access laws are so arbitrary and complex that they leave small parties open to legal pestering. In Arizona, large Democratic donors hired three corporate law firms to file frivolous challenges to our clearly ample number of signatures. For example, 1,349 signatures of registered voters were invalidated because the person who collected them had given his or her correct full address but had neglected to include the correct name of the county. The purpose of these exercises are, in lobbyist Moffett's words, "to neutralize [Nader's] campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things."
quote: These ties with Democrats don't prevent the 527s from accepting help from entrenched corporate interests, or even Republican quarters, to finance challenges of the signatures we have collected to meet the requirements of ballot access. According to reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service, Robert Savoie, president of Louisiana-based Science & Engineering Associates, donated $25,000 to the National Progress Fund in June. A month before, Savoie gave $25,000 to the Republican National Committee.
In Pennsylvania, where a court last Monday barred us from appearing on the ballot, signature challenges have been mounted by Reed Smith, a law firm whose political action committee primarily gives to Republicans. A lawyer from the firm boasted to the New York Times that "8 to 10 lawyers in his firm were working pro bono on the case, 80 hours each a week for two weeks, and could end up working six more weeks." The firm is counsel to 29 of the top 30 U.S. banks, 26 of the Fortune 50 companies, nine of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies, and 50 of the world's leading drug and medical device manufacturers.
posted
I don't know. A vast conspiracy to keep someone off the ballot through intimidation, funded by special interests? Oh my God! If Kerrey's elected we'll have a police state!
Dagonee P.S., I was hoping to have a real discussion on this, but you're right, flinging accusations back and forth might be more fun.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Asking folk whether they made an informed decision inregards to a petition they signed is quite legal, and moral.
However, the RepublicanNationalCommittee sending out lists of non-Republican names to the various states' AttorneysGeneral and StateSecretaries demanding that those non-Republicans be removed from voter roles -- with the accompanying threat of federal prosecution of the states' voter-registration officials by our beloved Republican USAttorneyGeneral for failure to comply -- at best seems to be an attempt at extortion upon government officials.
quote: Asking folk whether they made an informed decision inregards to a petition they signed is quite legal, and moral.
Legal, perhaps. Moral? If it was a simple, "did you sign this? yes? Thank you, goodbye", then sure. But investigators coming to your door, phone calls trying to persuade you to say you didn't sign it, that's harrassment aimed at intimidating people and is definately not moral.
The ballot proccesses are undoubtedly corrupt and are aimed at making it difficult for small parties to get on the ballot. I'm all for changing this system, but I don't see any politicians that are eager to help out the competition.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can't dismiss this simply by saying "yeah, the Republicans do it too." Although that may be true, and I would be very interested in reading a thread on that, such allegations do not relieve the Democrats of their responsibility.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Asking folk whether they made an informed decision inregards to a petition they signed is quite legal, and moral.
It certainly doesn't sounds like people where just "asked if they made an informed desicion inregards to a petition they signed", it sounds like people where herassed, and that ever loop-hole to be found was used against them (like not specifing United States). Do the Republicans do this too? Does that question matter? What these people doing seems pretty clearly morally suspect at best, and other's faillings don't give an excuse for one's own.
Let's do remember that the evidence given is two anecdotal examples that, while they do sound improper, are not fully explained and may not truly be indicative of the actions being performed by the organizations as a whole. For example, I've dealt with enough corporate collectors to have several pretty amazing stories about how badly I was treated. On the other hand, a great majority of my dealings with corporate collectors has been very professional.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Around the same time, McAuliffe told me in a phone conversation that he actively approved of these organized efforts, one of which is ironically called the Ballot Project. He urged me to run only in the 31 states considered to be locked up by one of the two candidates.
quote:The purpose of these exercises are, in lobbyist Moffett's words, "to neutralize [Nader's] campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things."
quote: Challenging the signatures of your rivals is an old political tactic, and when you're collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures, there are bound to be some that don't withstand scrutiny. But the Democrats are not just seeking compliance with harsh election laws. They are using dirty tricks to intimidate citizens.
Again, there is no real evidence, aside from two anecdotal examples, that the "dirty tricks" are actually happening. The summarized phone call and the partial quote from a lobbyist refer to the organizations whose stated purpose is to "seek compliance with harsh election laws." These organizations are most probably staffed with volunteers, whose training, expertise, and supervision may not be on par with their enthusiasm. Did some minor harassment occur? Maybe. But you can’t infer from McAuliffe’s statement that he supports the organizations, that he approves of harrassment, which, as I said before, is supported only by vague allegations. Of course McAuliffe wants Nader off the ballot. He’s the chairman of the DNC. Its his job to help the Democratic candidate to win. Nader only hurts those chances. It may be cheap politics, but I hesitate to call it party approved harrassment.
[ September 05, 2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Democratic Party's machine is operating in many other ways, too. Its apparatchiks were waiting at the Virginia secretary of state's office on Aug. 20 to say that our signature gatherers did not arrive in time, when in fact they arrived with 25 minutes to spare. The head of the state Elections Division, who happens to be the former executive director of the Virginia Democratic Party, refused even to accept our petitions until she was ordered to do so by the state attorney general.
posted
Again, cheap politics. But there's no shortage of that these days. I'm not condoning them. I just took offense at the implications of approved harrassment.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, Nader's beliefs and platform side more with a traditional Democratic message. His candidacy will hurt Kerry much more.
By the same measure, the Republicans were much more afraid of Ross Perot than Bill Clinton ever was. And the Republican party used as many dirty tricks as they could back then.
Both parties have vested interests in keeping down any real shot at a third party. And both have become more and more vulnerable over the last 35 years or so.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Chairman of the DNC approves of these tactics.
Again, which tactics are you referring to? The tactics that people really seem to have a problem with, the "harrassment" issues, are not connected to the quotes that Nader uses to implicate McAuliffe and Moffet.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Kerrey is on record as at least being concerned enough to investigate the groups. Is he wrong to be so concerned? And having given Kerrey a chance to respond for 7 weeks, is Nader wrong for complaining outside the fold?
posted
No, Nader is not wrong to complain. I think third parties are treated extremely unfairly. It is the content of his complaint that I take exception to. I find it misleading and just a little paranoid.
[ September 07, 2004, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
