Democracy Now, Wednesday, October 31st, 2007
*Ralph Nader Files Lawsuit Accusing Democratic Party of Conspiring to
Block Presidential Run
*http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/31/145208
The lawsuit accuses the Democratic Party of "groundless and abusive
litigation" to bankrupt Ralph Nader's campaign and force him off the
ballot in 18 states. We speak with Nader attorney Carl Mayer. [includes
rush transcript] Consumer advocate and three-time presidential
candidate
Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday for conspiring to
prevent him from running for president in 2004. The lawsuit was filed
on
behalf of Nader, his vice presidential running mate Peter Miguel Camejo
and a group of voters from several states. It names as co-defendants
the
Kerry-Edwards campaign, the Service Employees International Union,
private law firms, and organizations like the Ballot Project and
America
Coming Together that were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of
the Democratic ticket. According to the lawsuit the defendants used
"groundless and abusive litigation" to bankrupt Ralph Nader's campaign
and force him off the ballot in 18 states.
We are joined in the firehouse studio here in New York by public
interest attorney Carl Mayer, whom the New York Times has described as
"a populist crusader and maverick lawyer." We tried reaching the
Democratic National Committee and some of the other defendants to
invite
them to the show but received no response.
Carl Mayer was part of the legal team that filed the lawsuit in
Washington, D.C. Tuesday.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
AMY GOODMAN: Consumer advocate and three-time presidential candidate
Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party Tuesday for conspiring to prevent
him from running for president in 2004. The lawsuit was filed on behalf
of Nader, his vice presidential running mate Peter Camejo and a group
of
voters from several states. It names as co-defendants the Kerry-Edwards
campaign, the Service Employees International Union, private law firms,
organizations like the Ballot Project and America Coming Together that
were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic
ticket. According to the lawsuit, the defendants used "groundless and
abusive litigation" to bankrupt Ralph Nader's campaign and force him
off
the ballot in eighteen states.
We're joined now here in New York by public interest attorney Carl
Mayer, whom the New York Times has described as "a populist crusader
and
maverick lawyer." We tried reaching the Democratic National Committee
and some of the other defendants to invite them to the show but
received
no response. Carl Mayer was part of the legal team that filed the
lawsuit in D.C. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Carl.
CARL MAYER: Thank you, Amy. Thank you for having me on.
AMY GOODMAN: Why are you suing?
CARL MAYER: To defend democracy. That's the title of the show -- excuse
me, is Democracy Now! And this was the most massive anti-democratic
campaign to eliminate a third-party candidate from the ballot in --
probably in recent American history. It is -- not content with having
all these laws and statutes on the book that make it difficult for
third-party and independent candidates to run, the Democratic Party and
their allies in over fifty-three law firms, with over ninety lawyers,
were engaged in filing litigation in eighteen states. They were to
remove Ralph Nader from the ballot. It was an organized, abusive
litigation process.
The core of the lawsuit is that these lawyers, led by Toby Moffett and
Elizabeth Holtzman, and something called the Ballot Project, which was
a
527 organization, systematically went around the country and filed
lawsuit after lawsuit, twenty-four in all, plus five FEC complaints, to
try to completely remove the Nader campaign from the ballot and to, in
effect, bankrupt the campaign, which they succeeded in doing. Not
content with that, one of the defendants, Reed Smith, which is a large
corporate law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, they are now going
after
Ralph Nader's personal bank account to make him pay some of the cost of
this litigation.
And, understand, despite being outspent by the Democratic Party and its
affiliated lawyers, the vast majority of these lawsuits were won by the
Nader campaign, which was a largely volunteer effort. And these
lawsuits
were won across the country, despite this organized effort of
intimidation and harassment. It's basically abusive process and
malicious prosecution. Those are common law torts. And it was very
clear
from the beginning that the Democratic Party was using the legal system
for an improper purpose. In fact, Toby Moffett, who's a former
congressman from Connecticut, said directly to The Guardian of London
in
an interview in December of 2004, this wasn't about the law. "I'd be
less than honest if I said" this was not about the law; this was about
getting Ralph Nader off the ballot. And that's what this effort was
about. And it's a shameful anti-democratic process by a party that
claims to be a democratic party.
And on top of that, the Democratic Party, or its allies, filed five FEC
complaints against the campaign, alleging improper --
AMY GOODMAN: Federal Election Commission.
CARL MAYER: The Federal Election Commission -- alleging improper
funding, improper finances, etc. They were all dismissed by the FEC.
Now, let me tell you how bad it got. There was an organized effort of
harassment of petitioners who went around trying to collect signatures
for the Nader campaign in Ohio, in Oregon and in Pennsylvania. In Ohio,
for example, lawyers were hired to call up petitioners and tell them
that if they didn't verify the signatures on the petition, they would
be
guilty of a felony. They were called at home by -- and they were, in
many cases, visited by private investigators and told -- this is voter
intimidation of the worst order.
In the state of Oregon, for example, there was a nominating convention,
and you need a thousand signatures at the convention. We have emails
from Democratic Party operatives stating, we want our people to go to
this convention and then refuse to sign the petition at the convention
so Nader will not get enough signatures at the convention to get on the
ballot. And they accomplished their goal in Oregon. After the
convention, there's an alternative way of getting on the ballot, which
is to collect signatures, and the Nader campaign went about doing that,
and during the course of that there was further harassment and
intimidation of petitioners by law firms, private investigators,
calling
up and threatening petitioners that they would be called before a court
if they did not certify all the petitions.
AMY GOODMAN: How did the Service Employees International Union fit into
this? Why are they being sued?
CARL MAYER: Well, the SEIU very clearly, in emails and on their
website,
the SEIU had a project, which was called ACT, or Americans Coming
Together. There were several 527 groups; these are independent
expenditure groups. And the SEIU was involved in them. The SEIU was
involved in trying to keep Nader off the ballot by using its members,
for example in Oregon, to go into the convention, but in other states
--
in other states, to try to actually void petitions by signing in the
wrong place. The complaint -- and this is all documented. It's a
seventy-three-page complaint, over 250 paragraphs, chapter and verse,
about how, for example, the SEIU came up with the strategy of getting
its members to go and write signatures in the wrong place on a
petition,
on Nader's petitions, which would then invalidate the entire petition.
So this was a coordinated anti-democratic activity, which in my view
has
little precedent in American history, and any third-party candidate of
whatever stripe -- leftwing, rightwing, populist, conservative -- they
should be outraged by what occurred in this case.
And we think we have a tremendous case before the D.C. Superior Court
and other legal actions we will take, because this conspiracy was so --
they were so adamant and vociferous about it, and the paper trail is
very clear. And we're not even into discovery. We can't wait to take
the
depositions of the party activists, Toby Moffett, Terry McAuliffe,
Elizabeth Holtzman, etc., who were at the center of this. In fact, the
center of this effort was something called the Ballot Project, which
was
started by Robert Brandon, who's one of the defendants, and he's a
consultant to the Democratic Party. And he held a meeting at the
Democratic Convention in 2004 with Moffett, Holtzman and a group of
other high-ranking Democrats, and they said, our purpose is to keep
Nader off the ballot. And they went, and they proceeded to do it,
spending millions of dollars.
AMY GOODMAN: What impact will all this have on Ralph Nader now? He has
said that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, he will run for
president. It looks like she is the frontrunner right now.
CARL MAYER: Well, in terms of 2008, I can't speak to 2008. And in
politics, things can change quite quickly. I mean, it's entirely
possible that the actual progressive base of the Democratic Party will
seek a nominee that reflects their views, which is that America should
end this war in Iraq. It hasn't been the history of the Democratic
Party, but it's way too early to talk about that.
But what this lawsuit will do, and the importance of it is, is to set a
precedent so that the two-party monopoly system that shuts out minor
parties in a way that other Western democracies never do, that this
will
set a precedent to prevent this type of intimidation and harassment.
That's the goal of the lawsuit. It doesn't matter whether it's Ralph
Nader or Michael Bloomberg or any other third-party candidate. The
point
is, we need as much competition in the political arena as we have in
other areas of American life. And it's time to stop rigging the game.
And what's unbelievable is that the laws on the books already pose a
tremendously high hurdle for third-party candidates. Tens of thousands
of signatures, it takes, to get on the ballot in states like Texas and
the Carolinas. And there's no other country where it's so difficult to
get on the ballot. And those laws are passed by the Democrat and
Republican Party to preserve their monopoly. So, "democracy now" --
"democracy now" is not even close. We are not close to a state of
democracy.
And recall also that in the history of the country, third parties were
very important. In the nineteenth century, it was much easier to get on
the ballot. The smaller third parties championed first important issues
like ending slavery, women's right to vote, Social Security; those were
all first advocated by third parties. And if you exclude third parties
from the ballot and from the debate, our democracy withers and
atrophies. And it is not at all consistent with the vital democratic
traditions of our country.
These third parties were around since the beginning of the Republic.
The
first third party was really the -- well, in some respects, was the
Anti-Federalist Party, but there was also something called the
Anti-Freemason Party, which was started in 1800. From the beginning of
the Republic, there were important third parties, which raised
important
issues. And we're now snuffing that out. And unless we fight for this,
this country will continue to have essentially a monopolistic position
on every issue, from healthcare to the Iraq war to any of the important
issues that so many people in this country care about.
AMY GOODMAN: Carl Mayer, we have to leave it there, but we will
certainly continue to follow this lawsuit. Carl Mayer is one of the
lead
attorneys on this lawsuit against the Democratic Party and others who
they say conspired to keep former presidential candidate Ralph Nader
off
of the ballot.
------------------------------
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
N. H.'s DeStefano shows why he is a jerk!!
DeStefano attacks the Green Party candidate Ferrucci "Next thing … you’ll be going after immigrants and anyone who doesn’t look like you. A leader is not someone who goes after someone."
Published: Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Mayoral hopefuls address concerns of youth at debate
Aaron Bray
Ben Beitler/Contributing Photographer
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. faced his opponents at Wexler-Grant Community School. Yesterday’s debate was the last before the Nov. 6 election.
The final debate before the Nov. 6 mayoral election elicited a greater outpouring of passion and personality from the candidates than past debates, but the issues themselves remained the same.
The debate — held at Wexler-Grant Community School and sponsored by the Democracy Fund and the local chapter of the League of Women Voters — relied on questions submitted by local high school and college students, including several Yalies.
Despite the intended youth focus, some young voters in attendance said they do not think their generation’s concerns were adequately addressed, although they said the debate elucidated key differences between Mayor John DeStefano, Jr., and his challengers on issues such as after-school programs and budget concerns.
DeStefano will face Republican Rick Elser ’81 and Green Party candidate Ralph Ferrucci in the Nov. 7 election, when he will seek a record eighth term.
Most questions focused on ways that city programs could deal with crime, immigration and education in New Haven. While Ferrucci and DeStefano debated the relative merits of their proposed programs, Elser advocated letting private and religious organizations replace some city-funded programs in order to ease the burden on tax payers.
In response to a question about how New Haven can improve the security of Yale dormitories, the candidates mentioned community policing — one issue on which all were in relative agreement. They said they want to see more police on bicycles and walking beats, rather than simply in patrol cars.
Elser and DeStefano both promoted job programs that connect high school and community college students — such as those at Gateway, whose new campus is planned for downtown — with future employers in the city.
Elser — who said jokingly that the tone of the questions left Republicans at a serious disadvantage because they presupposed that every good program should be government-run — said he would increase accountability within various municipal departments if elected.
But the audience, which grew in size to about 75 people over the course of an hour, saved the most applause for Ferrucci and DeStefano. The mayor said the city’s vast renovations of public schools are integral to providing a safe and welcoming environment in which children can learn. But Ferrucci said he thinks construction is not as important as reducing class size, and he called for more money to fund public schools.
“When children are dropping out at a high rate, you need to spend more money,” Ferrucci said to heavy applause. “We need to go after Yale. … Yale has to pay a fair share. They can do more for New Haven.”
DeStefano criticized Ferrucci’s aggressive approach as poor leadership.
“This isn’t about going after Yale or North Haven or Hamden,” he said, referring to cities whose police officers, Ferrucci said, drop off homeless individuals in New Haven, where people are guaranteed a spot in a homeless shelter. “Next thing … you’ll be going after immigrants and anyone who doesn’t look like you. A leader is not someone who goes after someone. A leader is someone who helps everyone see their self-interest in [working with] others.”
Responding to a question about after-school programs, Ferrucci said the city cannot rely solely on initiatives that keep schools open late.
“We need to give [kids] a place to go,” he said. “Few people want to go back to school after the day is done. Neighborhood-based community centers need to be supported.”
DeStefano expressed frustration with Ferrucci and said the third-party candidate’s comments about education illustrate that he does not “understand what goes on” in schools. A possible future leader should not be “disrespecting” the schools he hopes to lead one day, DeStefano said.
Several youth in attendance said there is no reason to believe that students would be uncomfortable spending time at school after the schoolday is over. Toddchelle Young, a student at Hillhouse High School, said the school, when open after hours, is just another building.
“It’s a place to be,” she said. “There are a lot of different connections, friendships that kids form at school.”
Young said she came to the debate because her high school is often mentioned in connection to crime and other problems in New Haven. Like several others at the debate, she said she wishes the focus had been more youth-oriented, but she appreciated the opportunity to draw distinctions among the candidates.
“Ferrucci was very aggressive,” Young said. “He tried to relate to regular citizens. He was promoting many [expensive] programs, but with such a tight budget, that doesn’t seem possible.”
Jen James ’08, a member of the Democracy Fund, said that while the debate was not entirely youth-focused, it demonstrated the candidates’ commitment to the city.
“It was not clearly partisan,” she said. “Each was talking about the city that they love.”
Published: Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Mayoral hopefuls address concerns of youth at debate
Aaron Bray
Ben Beitler/Contributing Photographer
Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. faced his opponents at Wexler-Grant Community School. Yesterday’s debate was the last before the Nov. 6 election.
The final debate before the Nov. 6 mayoral election elicited a greater outpouring of passion and personality from the candidates than past debates, but the issues themselves remained the same.
The debate — held at Wexler-Grant Community School and sponsored by the Democracy Fund and the local chapter of the League of Women Voters — relied on questions submitted by local high school and college students, including several Yalies.
Despite the intended youth focus, some young voters in attendance said they do not think their generation’s concerns were adequately addressed, although they said the debate elucidated key differences between Mayor John DeStefano, Jr., and his challengers on issues such as after-school programs and budget concerns.
DeStefano will face Republican Rick Elser ’81 and Green Party candidate Ralph Ferrucci in the Nov. 7 election, when he will seek a record eighth term.
Most questions focused on ways that city programs could deal with crime, immigration and education in New Haven. While Ferrucci and DeStefano debated the relative merits of their proposed programs, Elser advocated letting private and religious organizations replace some city-funded programs in order to ease the burden on tax payers.
In response to a question about how New Haven can improve the security of Yale dormitories, the candidates mentioned community policing — one issue on which all were in relative agreement. They said they want to see more police on bicycles and walking beats, rather than simply in patrol cars.
Elser and DeStefano both promoted job programs that connect high school and community college students — such as those at Gateway, whose new campus is planned for downtown — with future employers in the city.
Elser — who said jokingly that the tone of the questions left Republicans at a serious disadvantage because they presupposed that every good program should be government-run — said he would increase accountability within various municipal departments if elected.
But the audience, which grew in size to about 75 people over the course of an hour, saved the most applause for Ferrucci and DeStefano. The mayor said the city’s vast renovations of public schools are integral to providing a safe and welcoming environment in which children can learn. But Ferrucci said he thinks construction is not as important as reducing class size, and he called for more money to fund public schools.
“When children are dropping out at a high rate, you need to spend more money,” Ferrucci said to heavy applause. “We need to go after Yale. … Yale has to pay a fair share. They can do more for New Haven.”
DeStefano criticized Ferrucci’s aggressive approach as poor leadership.
“This isn’t about going after Yale or North Haven or Hamden,” he said, referring to cities whose police officers, Ferrucci said, drop off homeless individuals in New Haven, where people are guaranteed a spot in a homeless shelter. “Next thing … you’ll be going after immigrants and anyone who doesn’t look like you. A leader is not someone who goes after someone. A leader is someone who helps everyone see their self-interest in [working with] others.”
Responding to a question about after-school programs, Ferrucci said the city cannot rely solely on initiatives that keep schools open late.
“We need to give [kids] a place to go,” he said. “Few people want to go back to school after the day is done. Neighborhood-based community centers need to be supported.”
DeStefano expressed frustration with Ferrucci and said the third-party candidate’s comments about education illustrate that he does not “understand what goes on” in schools. A possible future leader should not be “disrespecting” the schools he hopes to lead one day, DeStefano said.
Several youth in attendance said there is no reason to believe that students would be uncomfortable spending time at school after the schoolday is over. Toddchelle Young, a student at Hillhouse High School, said the school, when open after hours, is just another building.
“It’s a place to be,” she said. “There are a lot of different connections, friendships that kids form at school.”
Young said she came to the debate because her high school is often mentioned in connection to crime and other problems in New Haven. Like several others at the debate, she said she wishes the focus had been more youth-oriented, but she appreciated the opportunity to draw distinctions among the candidates.
“Ferrucci was very aggressive,” Young said. “He tried to relate to regular citizens. He was promoting many [expensive] programs, but with such a tight budget, that doesn’t seem possible.”
Jen James ’08, a member of the Democracy Fund, said that while the debate was not entirely youth-focused, it demonstrated the candidates’ commitment to the city.
“It was not clearly partisan,” she said. “Each was talking about the city that they love.”
Nader sues Democrats
Ralph Nader sues Democratic Party
Tue Oct 30, 5:40 PM ET
Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.
Nader's lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry's campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket.
The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.
"The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy."
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.
The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law."
Nader's attorney, Bruce Afran, argued that the DNC would be terrified of having the case come to trial. He said he hoped the committee would choose to settle the case and apologize.
"This is a case designed to make sure other independent and third party candidates will not be subject to the same kind of conspiracy in the future," Afran said.
Nader received 463,653 votes in the election, or 0.38% of total votes cast.
DNC spokesman Luis Miranda declined comment on the suit, citing a policy on pending litigation.
Tue Oct 30, 5:40 PM ET
Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.
Nader's lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry's campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket.
The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.
"The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters," Nader said in a statement. "This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy."
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader's campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.
The lawsuit seeks "compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law."
Nader's attorney, Bruce Afran, argued that the DNC would be terrified of having the case come to trial. He said he hoped the committee would choose to settle the case and apologize.
"This is a case designed to make sure other independent and third party candidates will not be subject to the same kind of conspiracy in the future," Afran said.
Nader received 463,653 votes in the election, or 0.38% of total votes cast.
DNC spokesman Luis Miranda declined comment on the suit, citing a policy on pending litigation.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
welcome to my new blog
I welcome you to this new blog on politics, the media and current news and issues of the day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
