The problem?

-Ralph Nader's presidential campaign, in possible violation of tax law, was housed in the same facility as a public charity that he founded.

-Theresa Amato, Nader's campaign manager, was said to have resigned her position with the public charity in 2003, but as recently as January, was listed as the person in charge of it. Thus, creating an illegal arrangement if true since public charities and campaigns are to be strictly separate.

-The arrangement is legal, if everything can be accounted for as to who belongs to who(i.e.-fax machines, copy machines, furniture, etc.) but the Nader campaign which is for "open" government refuses to be "open" A rather Nixonian statement is provided below.



-A phone number listed as a number for the public charity was answered "Nader for President" The explanation?



So that settles it, it was an honest mistake!, nevermind that the mistake would not have been made if the original intent of the law to keep campaigns separate from public charities was followed in the first place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun12.html

Questions for debate:

1.)Is Nader's refusal to publicly account for everything(as stated by law) an act of hypocrisy considering how he wants "open" government??

2.)Is Nader ultimately to blame for this arrangement, or is the charges against him baseless?

3.)Does this change your mind about Ralph Nader?

1.)Is Nader's refusal to publicly account for everything(as stated by law) an act of hypocrisy considering how he wants "open" government??

Nope. The fact that he is running is proof alone that he is for open government. Do you think it is easy running as a third party or independent candidate in this day and age for the president of the United States?

2.)Is Nader ultimately to blame for this arrangement, or is the charges against him baseless?

The charges are completely baseless.


3.)Does this change your mind about Ralph Nader?

Nope.

I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Kerry is currently ahead in the polls, I see no valid or supportable reason to attempt to galvanize his position this early (a near impossibility anyway given that this election will again come down to the wire). Your best bet as a Democrat is to get behind a spoiler of your own. May I suggest the Libertarian party? You might find some points of agreement with them, and they are as likely to steal votes away from Bush as Nader is to steal votes away from Kerry. Or do I see the seeds of some liberal fragmentation going on here? Consider Kerry's recent surge in the polls. It couldn't have anything to do with a Libertarian bounce from their recent convention and a nomination of their own, could it?

You wont find this kind of advice on your 24 hour news (aka editorial) stations. It goes like this: Republicans are so quick to go on the offensive with respect to liberals that as soon as Nader jumped into the ring they jumped on him. The timing on his part was impeccable. He announced his candidacy before conservatives were expecting him to. They have been backpedaling ever since. How? By remaining absolutely silent (and they utterly detest themselves for this restraint. They are like a pack of rabid wolves chained up with a thick slab of meat just inches away. But the restaint is necessary: once elected they can have all the meat they want). They think people will forget the shredding of Nader by conservatives and/or will transfer this same hostility as being originated by other liberals (these are president Rove's political chess moves, not mine). All they have to do is wait. Wait until the Demos start to fragment (they believe this will happen on its own), then they go all out and get behind Nader to exacerbate it since he wont win if they get behind him late in the game. The only move is for liberals to stretch themselves enough to get behind a good spoiler like Michael Baradnik (Libertarian candidate) and put conservatives back in check. Your move, Rover - which by the way would manifest itself as a character assassination attempt of the Libertarian (something Roverian neocons are exceedingly good at, sadly). But nothing fires up Libertarians more than this sort of thing, and I think the neocons would be sorry if they went there.

I went off topic to make a point. Nader's selective concealment (notice it isn't complete concealment) of his goings on are completely legitimate in light of the enactment of the Patriot Act and the complete and utter circuitousness of tax law. As a candidate, how else do you express your disagreement with these (I would argue) unconstitutional overreaches of the Congress? By revealing everything about your entire life history to everybody, in effect in complete agreement and conformance to them? I don't think we have ever seen such a candidate. Moreover, if this kind of shredding went on with an aspiring candidate and that candidate won, what would the effect on that candidate be? Enactment of Patriot Act III by executive order? The statement "I have nothing to hide" is a double negative and therefore can be exposed as tautological. For example, what is the opposite? "I have everything to hide"? or "I have nothing to show"? or my personal favorite "I don't have nothing not hidden"? If the true opposite is "I have everything to show" then I would have to ask "Are we playing charades?" or "Is this some kind of joke?"

Is Nader's refusal to publicly account for everything (as stated by law) an act of hypocrisy considering how he wants "open" government?

As a Nader supporter, at first glance I am a bit unsettled by what I've read. But the blurring of the lines, between Mr. Nader's own charities and the campaign to make him President and thus give a major boost to those very charities, doesn't really bother me.

I am a bit unnerved by Nader's defensive tone, but he's always a bit cranky. It may be a bit hypocritical to refuse to be open with the press, but unless I'm mistaken, the FEC hasn't gotten involved. And if the FEC does get involved, I'm sure Ralph will comply with its demands, provided it acts within the boundaries of current disclosure and elections laws. I think Ralph is just wary about giving a scoop to media outlets that he feels aren't giving him the type of coverage an honest campaign like his deserves.

Is Nader ultimately to blame for this arrangement, or is the charges against him baseless?

I think anyone who takes a stand like Nader's on the issue of openness and accountability should expect attacks such as this. Everyone who takes a stand on principle should be held to those principles. The charges may well have some foundation, in which case they should be addressed to preserve Ralph's credibility.

Does this change your mind about Ralph Nader?

Of course not. Are loyal Democrats out there going to dump John Kerry because he voted for the Patriot Act, portions of which he now decries? Are staunch Republicans going to bolt on Bush because of his administration's arrogant attitude toward the rest of the world after he counseled humility during the 2000 Campaign? This is proof that Nader is not perfect, and is more of a political animal than he might care to admit, but it's really not big enough for me to run to any other candidate.

I have studied the positions of Ralph Nader, John Kerry and George Bush. I have sided with Nader on most issues, including: Iraq Reconstruction, Foreign Policy, a Living Wage, Tax Laws, the Death Penalty, Welfare Reform, Electoral Reform - the list goes on. Why should I now give my vote to John Kerry, with whom I disagree on many of these issues?

Ralph Nader isn't perfect, but his views are very similar to my own. From my vantage point, there just isn't much substantive difference between Kerry and Bush. If Kerry can put more distance between himself and the President, and explain convincingly why he didn't do it earlier, he may have a shot at getting my vote. But it will take more than this conflict of interest to change my mind.

Jefferson Smith

Let me just say that I don't think the accusations here are being taken too seriously. Rather than just broadly sweep these things through generalizations, how about posting links that show that Nader's charity and campaign were truly separate and had everything accounted for? How about posting sometning to the effect that the Washington Post article was in error? I like Nader and was in the greens for awhile, so his views are not in stark contrast to mine. At the same time, one must mind their own house before they tell others to do the same.



So this justifies skirting campaign laws and just disregarding regulations about keeping charities and campaigns separate?



Maybe you can recruit wertz for this effort, but could you provide links or something that states otherwise? What do you base this statement on?




Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with it, it is the law of the land, just as campaign finance laws are laws of the land. They were passed in our elected system of government and are thus, legitimate. We don't get to pick which laws we wish to obey and disobey at will.



We are talking about campaign finance records, not personal things such as: "how many people have you taken on a date?" and that kind of thing.