I'm putting this in "Casual Conversation" because I have only heard through my very good friend something, well, interesting. Therefore I can't yet substantiate any of it....

So my friend is a lawyer who works in public administration. In particular, he travels to "third world" cities and helps them modernize. In his travels he has made many friends (he worked in DC for some time also) in government.

Anyway, recently he stopped back in the home state and we spent some time together. He told me an interesting story about a friend of his. Apparently this friend works for the Republican party in DC but is presently in California working for the Nader campaign!! My friend talked to him recently and the man told him that he was essentially working as an insider for the Republican party and that they were pumping loads of money and influence into the Nader campaign in an effort to win California. I realize this sounds like I'm a raving lunatic left-winger however I am seriously intereted in the reality of this claim. Has anyone seen anything about this or looked through Nader's list of campaign contributors??
I'm curious to see if the Governator and Nader have many of the same contributors.

Anyway, it seems to be a smart way for the Bush campaign to divide California's liberals. My interest is this: Is this a legal method of avoiding campaign finance rules? Is there a legal issue with funding a seperate campaign in order to go after your main opponents votes?

Anyway, thsi is really just a novelty. Politics never ceases to amze and surprise me...

This has also been reported happening in Oregon as well.



Interesting tactics here, I'd call them clever yet devious. I don't know what the legality is here.

However, I think that ultimately it won't work out for the GOP. Most liberals want Bush out bad enough that they know a vote for Nader in certain states = a vote for Bush.

Anything to get more 3rd parties on the ballot I say! I wish they would do this for the Libertarians, but then that might cost votes. Harry Browne (Lib) got more than enough votes to give Gore a victory in Florida, New Mexico and a few other states, it just didn't get any press.

"pumping loads of money" into the Nader campaign would be difficult.

Nader's Contribution Guidlines

Some highlights from the above link:

I've heard of the Oregon thing, nothing about California though. I do think it's one thing for the GOP to help Nader get on the ballot in a battleground state like Oregon. It is quite another though to actually help him campaign. I don't think his message is going to be particularly helpful to Bush or the GOP. I don't know what he's going to say, but I doubt it's going to be a "vote for me so Bush can win" message.

I sure can't see them spending much time on him in California, this crazy place is hardly a "swing state".

It alludes me too as to why he is spending time in California, unless maybe he thinks he can appeal to some of the people that live in Marin County and write ballot measures like this:

I think Nader's lost his marbles. There have been several news stories about him lately. The Greens have snubbed him, the Dems are pleading with him not to run, and yet he stubbornly plods on.

I found this about the Oregon deal. I guess if you gather 1,000 people in one place to nominate a candidate you can get your name on the ballot. He was unable to do so (Jeez, if you can't get 1,000 people interested in you running for president, hello? Wakeup call!) so he went on a radio show hosted by Portland's answer to Rush Limbaugh (Lars Larson) to appeal to his listeners (conservatives) to come out in support of him...and what ensued is funnier than heck; read the story here.

While not totally unexpected, the Republicans' tactics in support of Nader are really beyond sleazy. There's gotta be a law...


Edited to add:

Wha' the?!?! Someone smokin' a little too much o' the herb up there or what??

I don't see that the Republicans' tactics were any sleazier than the Democrats' tactics of attempting to deny Nader his place on the ballot were. It is a funny story though and sounds like one heck of a fun party to attend. I hope Nader made it on the ballot.

I beg to differ. Cash support from a diametrically opposite political party is a whole lot sleazier than a few people sneaking in hoping to reinforce what had already happened (Nader being unable to get 1,000 people to support him without resorting to tapping the conservative well).

I had not heard of the Oregon thing..very interesting.
Also I don't believe that Nader's contribution policy would be any sort of hurdle for the GoP in California. Bush has enough of his own money so it would make perfect sense for groups of republicans to organize and focus their money toward the Nader campaign if they were motivated to do so. The dems. on the other hand, without such an organized base, would find that much harder to do...


I believe this would be found to be perfectly legal if the supreme court were to look for two reasons:

Republicans voters can give their money to whomever they wish and are free to do so. Also, if the GoP were found to be asking people to do this still, they have no assurance that the votes Nader gets will hurt Kerry, they only hope it will.


Still, there is a registered republican, employee of the GoP, who is working on Nader's Cali. campaign....that seems to be problematic..and yet nearly unprovable.
He could simply cite a change of political heart...

I am sure that it is legal. Former California Governer Gray Davis, spent millions convincing Republicans/conservatives that Bill Simon was a better candidate for them than Ray Riordan. Riordan was the effective threat to his re-election, and Davis' money had some influence on Republicans choosing the weaker Bill Simon for his opponent. It was widely talked about in the media, but nobody filed suit so I guess that it's legal.

I would doubt very much that Republicans are plugging Nader in CA. The State is a slam dunk for Kerry, and a waste of money for them to do that. It could see it being done in Florida.

Kerry could obviously be troubled by Nader in swing States (CA isn't one). However, (because of this) the Dems are trying to smear Nader and it could harm him if they could get the message out that Republicans are backing him. I suspect that could be what this rumor is.

I can see this becoming a game of oneupmanship where the GOP supports Nadar or Green candidates while the DNC supports Libertarian or Independent candidates. The net effect will cancel out, but as mentioned, more third party candidates would appear on ballots.

Leading to more plurality presidents? Perhaps more third party Congressional memberships?

Guess this is legal. You don't have to be a party member to give money, and I doubt any campaign would turn down the offer.

It would be hillarious if Nadar nails some EC votes and throws them to Kerry, then Nadar announces that the GOP suffers from visions of grandeur. But hey, thanks for the dough! Finally -- some trickle down.

I don't see it as sleazy as much as yet another poorly thought out GOP plan. It's flimsy. Or maybe dangerous in that it can backfire easily.

Well, I just donated $10 bucks to Nader and there was nothing on the form that said you had to mention if you were a Republican donating --

It's kind of silly trying to verify if all the people donating to your campaign have the same political ideals or not.

The quote from the article you mentioned above left out the fact that Egan donated the max ($2000) and a couple of his relatives donated $2000. That's hardly "bankrolling", when campaigns cost millions.

The problem I see is that Democrats are scared -- they are unable to provide us with progressive candidates, but they don't want anyone else to run. They refuse to change and are at the root of most of their own problems. The first few minutes oif Fahrenheit 9/11 covers some of the dems problems that they'd like to blame on Nader.


As far as I'm concerned "outrage" at conservative support of Nader is just sour grapes of the dems

Sour grapes it may be, but it could also mean another four years of this miserable administration, which is what all those donaters are after. While I am not a Democrat, my goal is to see Bush booted out of the White House. Unfortunately, a third party candidate isn't going to get that job done.

Well for those of us who don't have a candidate that represents our views in the two parties -- we welcome diverse alternatives represented by third party candidates.

There are a lot of people who want US troops out of Iraq, a sane foreign policy, and corporate power reigned in, which among other things Kerry will not do. Nader gives those voters someone to vote for.

In 2000, if Nader hadn't been running, I simply would not have voted -- I was that disgusted with the direction of the democratic party. I think it's likely that if demos keep pushing "our candidate or no one" they'll keep home a lot of depressed and angry voters who find the whole corrupt mess futile on election day.

If the dems are so sure they have the best candidate, why are they worried about Ralph? If Kerry's the best, he'll get the votes.

Nader doesn't steal votes. He earned them. I am offended by the assumption that those who vote for Nader are mindless enough that their votes can be "stolen". Kerry so far has done nothing to earn mine except to say that he isn't Bush. Bush is bad, but I don't believe in lesser of two evil voting. Everyday I see headlines (in the alternative, truly liberal press) of what Kerry stands for and it isn't what I stand for.

I am in the Green Party, and while I will be supporting David Cobb as the Green Candidate but I will also be supporting Nader's effort to get on the ballot. I don't believe that Ralph will be taking many votes from Cobb or Kerry -- on the contrary, I believe it will help to get many people out to vote who normally wouldn't because their views were being ignored again.

I believe that openess and inclusiveness is what we need in this country.

Well, while the Republican Party is apparently trying to help Nader get on the ballot in some states, apparently, the Democratic Party is doing whatever it can to deny him access, and people a choice in the coming election.

In Arizona they are once again going to court to deny Nader access and this doesn't seem to sit well with the Nader people. From that article.....



All is not right in leftville tonight. I gotta hand it to the Democrats, they may not know how to run a country, but they sure are entertaining!

It was just announced on the news that the Dems were successful in AZ.

Here's something from the Political Grapevine:

How hypocritical can the Dems be? Weren't they the same ones who said the rules needed to be changed in the New Jersey Senate race so they could put Frank Laughtenburg on the ballot after the deadline? Their reason was the people needed a choice. And now in AZ they don't want tthe people to have the choice to vote for Nader.

Stories like this expose them for the hypocrites they are.

Nice over-blown vitriol, there. Signature challenges are a routine feature of any campaign where a political party thinks it can make a difference- Dems and Repubs use them against each other all the time. I'm hardly outraged at conservative support for Nader- I consider it, like signature challenges, to be good party tactics- like a major party having the audacity to insist on having a candidate in a Senate race!

The return volley of "outrage" is especially odious considering that, as in the cited article, the conservatives aren't even pretending to support Nader, but instead just want to increase the amount they can spend against Kerry. If unlimited donations are protected political speech as many in the GOP claim, isn't this equivalent to lying? I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have loved the idea of the wealthiest party propping up lightweights they detest in order to strengthen their own weak candidate. It's smart politics, but don't act like it's a sacred quest taken to enrich the process.

To flip the usual "Why are Dems scared?" question around, if Bush is so great, why are Repubs wasting their precious money on a guy whose views are further from theirs than Kerry's? People who hate paying taxes giving money to a Green, who will never have the opportunity or inclination to "scratch their back" as an office holder? Because, in 2000, we had 51% of the populace vote for candidates to the left of Bush, and he still won, by razor-thin margins in swing states. Nader doesn't "steal' votes from the Dems, but there's no positive practical consequence of voting for him if you oppose Bush's policies. And the Repubs are wisely pursuing a "divide and conquer" strategy because they fear a slim majority is still against them.

I never thought I'd agree with you on any topic, Aquilla, but I think you hit the nail on the head here. The dems are trying to restrict access and choice in this situation.

Just as a side note-- Nader is an independent. David Cobb is the Green Party candidate. Nader was hoping to get a Green Party endorsement, and while he does have a lot of Green values, he is not a member of the Green Party.

Another issue I have to those that feel that voting for Kerry is the only practical solution: there are other Bush family members that could run for president in the future, and now that the neocons have had a taste of power and now that they know how much they can get away with we'll have many more candidates that will be (in my opinion) as bad as Bush running in future elections. Do you democrats expect us progressives to keep puting up with the crappy candidates that you offer election after election? You claim this year it's to get Bush out, but what about next election when it could possibly be Jeb Bush running? Are we supposed to always and forever play the "lesser of the two evils" game and give up our values?

I think the dems wasted a valuable lesson. Instead of looking at the support Nader got in 2000 and saying -- hmm, maybe we're not representing a whole lot of people out there, maybe the strategy of inching right year after year isn't working. What can we do to change? -- they instead went into denial, and as many in denial do, they blamed others for their problems.

Now the dems are using fear, much like the Bush admin., to try to manipulate people. "If you don't vote for Kerry, Bush will be in for 4 more years . . ." sounds a lot like "If we don't get Saddam there will be more terrorists attacks . . ." to me.

My prefered strategy is to help build a progressive movement (probably impossible at this point in the Democratic party) that will shift attention to important issues that get left out. If the Dems want my vote, they'll need to embrace values similar to mine, otherwise I will invest my vote in a party that will.

Sorry, I just don't buy that voting for Nader actually helps anyone. How will health care for the poor be improved by voting for an also ran? What Green has a better Congressional voting record than a Kennedy or a Kucinich? Whether Nader made every state ballot or not, either Bush or Kerry will be the one in the White House, lobbying Congress and signing laws. More real options would be nice, but under the current system, we have two choices and a slate of "I just came out to say I'm disgruntled" presidential candidates. Note the Congressional black caucus pleading Nader to quit- people who represent the legitimate needs of a community prefer actual gradual improvement to pretend dramatic improvement.

Sure, not much of the progressive agenda gets done under even a liberal Dem: because we have the other half of Congress to fight. Such is the burden in having an actual role in governance- the Green party in Germany had to moderate quickly when they found themselves in a coalition government a few years back. We're in the real fight and have to govern with the 49% or so on the right.

Right now, third parties are like chihuahuas snapping at the heels of two gladiators. They can influence the outcome, distract, annoy, etc., but they're not going to win. To have any effect on the process not opposite to their professed goals, third parties would need to admit their current inanity- and either band together in a united third party movement for electoral reform allowing them viability (IRV, etc.) or (the less promising option) directly bargain with the main parties to exchange platform changes in return for support. Buuuuuuuuuut . . .

jenreiautter


Umm, Gore won the popular vote. With a piddling 48%, yes, but that 48% covered a much wider selection than Nader's almost 3%. Right now, about 40% of voters are solidly Bush, 40% are solidly Kerry, and 20% are undecided. Nader's likely to do worse this year, despite GOP cash (third party candidates peak in early polls). So do you go for the large bloc of NASCAR dads in swing states, or for 2000's Naderites? By most estimates, around 38% of the country are loyal Dems. Some are very liberal, some are fairly conservative- the peril of maintaining a viable national party. That's a hard enough chunk of the population to keep together without considering the need to appeal to around 12% more across many states to win the presidency. If non-Dem progressives want to be a courted voting bloc, they need to swell their ranks past those of centrist independents.

jenreiautter


I assure you Kerry losing the election has a much closer tie to Bush winning than Saddam had to initiating terrorist attacks. And if Kerry loses by even 1 vote, Nader doing well won't much influence Bush's pick of judges, Supreme Court Justices, laws to sign, wars to fight, amendments to back, etc. But isn't standing on principle more important than dirtying one's hands for actual change? Nader supporters claimed that his staying in in 2000 would trigger a leftward turn if it hurt the Dems. Aside from that prediction being based on shaky electoral math from people unable to reach 5%, have we seen anything of the kind?

I have the upmost respect for Kucinich, and I had even donated to his campaign. But the fact that Kucinich doesn't have a chance shows you just how bad the Dems as a party have gotten.



More real options would be nice, but they'll never happen if you keep pressuring those with progressive values to not vote for what they believe in election after election. You'll ensure that there will always be ONLY two parties and that things will never change. It's time to look long term.

Also, there's a misperception -- I think the ABB voters are more likely to vote because of being disgruntled -- many Greens I know are voting for their values. Key word here is for rather than against. My first three elections I voted against a particular candidate. Voting for a candidate in 2000 was a much more rewarding experience.

I also believe that disgruntled voters probably more often express their 'disgruntlement' by staying home instead of voting 3rd party.



You also have to fight the 'bought and paid for' dems, though not as expensive as the 'bought and paid for' repubs, who still owe their allegiance to the highest bidder.

And then what about all those dems that layed down and rolled over to give Bush the power to attack Iraq? There was a dem majority then.

I'm not saying there aren't progressive dems (Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney come to mind), but they are getting rarer all the time and the party as a whole is moving further and further right. That's not going to stop with wishful thinking.

I also submit that if progressive third parties are allowed to grow, you'd see a lot of progressive dems changing affiliation, which would allow the democratic party to become the center-right party it's itching to be.



I'm a big proponent for IRV, but if you keep trying to shut out 3rd parties and make them weak and ineffectual, it's unlikely that IRV will ever be used. The dems aren't going to willingly give us a voting system that will allow third parties to have a shot, do you? I think the only way that the dems and repubs would allow something like this to happen is if a competing third party starts getting powerful enough that IRV might give them a few more votes than non-IRV.

If the dems get their wish and crush progressive third parties and independent candidates, it's not going to make me want to vote for the people they tend to nominate. It will make me just want to stay home. And I'm sure I'm far from the only one that feels that way.

Here is the way I see things: Ralph Nader is desperately struggling to get on the ballot in as many states as possible, in order to give voters another choice this November. Whatever legal means he uses to get on those ballots is alright with me, because the end result is that I will have a reason to go to the polls on Election Day. From the outset of his campaign, he claimed to represent true conservatives disillusioned by the Bush Administration. So Republicans cannot be barred from helping his campaign, or else those Republicans who honestly support him (and there are more than you might think) would be shut out.

Nader is being cynical if he is using Republicans whose ideologies differ from his to get on ballots. But the Republicans are also being cynical, and the Democrats are being downright undemocratic! How dare they try to deny a man his constitutional right, as a natural-born American citizen, to pursue the Presidency? If I can't vote for Ralph in November, I'll look for another party to support, and I will likely find a party which, unlike the Democrats, represents my views. If I don't, I won't vote at all. So why don't the Democrats just try to earn my vote back from a third party?

This year, it all comes down to issues, not party maneuverings. And Ralph has my vote on the issues. So please give me a chance to vote for him!

Agreed. The more wise direction would be to get a Libertarian on the same ballots to draw Republican votes.

This might still come to pass. Time's coming short though. Not sure anyone has a clear head at this point, not with either of the Big Two.

Back in the day when I could not stomach the idea of casting a vote for Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan, I chose instead to vote my conscience and cast my vote for John Anderson.

Despite being the butt of jokes and criticism from my family for years now, I have never regretted that vote. Anderson drew votes from Carter more than Reagan, but if every Anderson vote had been cast for Carter, Reagan still would have won.

I won't blame Ralph Nader for the lousy campaign Al Gore ran. He abandoned my state of Ohio when it was still competitive, lost a traditional Democratic state in West Virginia, couldn't hold onto President Clinton's home state of Arkansas and lost his own state of Tennessee. You change almost any of those states into a Gore state and we're talking about his reelection instead of George Bush's.

But jenreiautter, while I agree with you that America desperately needs to build strong and viable third parties to challenge our two corporate controlled and special interest enslaved parties, I think the approach is wholly unrealistic by backing another run by Ralph Nader. Nader has run before and been overwhelminlgly rejected before by the vast majority of American voters. This is not simply because the man only has one suit and his politics are out of fashion with the moderate, middle-of-the-road approach most people seem to want.

The cold truth of the matter is that the political fortunes have shifted to the center and away from the far Right and far Left wings of the Republcian and Democratic parties. Nader himself realizes this. He said so as much when in a recent speech reported on SALON.com when a black audience member asked him why should he cast his one vote for a vanity candidate who can't win. Nader replied that the Dems have taken for granted the black vote is locked up in November, but why not "give them a scare" before voting for Kerry. Nader is trying to ensure that while Kerry runs to the middle for the fall he doesn't forget the progressive wing of the party that is swallowing hard because they so despise Bush.

The biggest whopper Ralph Nader has told is this fantasy that he can draw votes away from Bush! Excuse me? Where are those ex-Bush voters flocking to Nader's campaign. And no---Republican mischief makers trying to help Ralph get on the ballot don't count.

You can stay home rather than give your vote to a unworthy candidate, jenreiautter. However, if you're waiting for that perfect candidate that passes both your ideological purity test and electability criteria, voting for Nader is a nice gesture of your contempt for contemporary politics, but a meaningless "feel-good" gesture is all it is if the net effect is to reelect an Administration that is the antithesis of everything you and Nader stand for.

Staying home is not a viable option for me. Four years of George W. Bush have shown me exactly what to expect from four more years of his stupidity and neglect. John Kerry hardly passes all of my ideological purity tests either, but I think he can win and I know he can do better for the environment, future Supreme Court appointees, national health care and national security that the guy who's got the job now.

And the reality of what Bush will do with four more years trumps the abstract hopes that Nader voters can "send a message" to the Democrats not to take the progressive wing for granted. If that is the case, where have you guys been for the last four years?