Green Party Poll about republican money

[LynneSin]

Let's try to not get into a flame war, I know usually I'm the one with the 'smoking gun' in my hand but even I'll try to rein it in for this poll.

I've always tried to support the Green Party's right to be on any ticket where they have met the requirements needed to be on the ballot but if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm really peeved about Rick Santorum paying the money needed to get the Green Candidate on the ticket. Other parties were also trying to get on the ticket for US Senate including Constitution and LIbertarian but neither received almost $100k from republicans in order to get the 67K votes needed. I feel that this not only looks bad for the Green Candidate Carl Romanelli, but feel that the Green Party should denounce this kind of manuever because it just makes them look like tools of the Republican party.

Now here is the question for Greens, Green SUpporters and other progressive thinkers.

Knowing that this transaction happened (Both Santorum and the Green Candidate Carl Romanelli have admitted to it) my question is this.

If you know that the Green Party candidate on your ticket was there through financial support from the Republican party, would this make a diffence on whether or not you vote for the candidate?

[LisaM]

1. Nit-picky, but it should be straight Democratic, not Democrat

and I agree, it makes the Greens look either 1) as if they are allowing themselves to be used; or 2) incredibly naive.

[LynneSin]

2. Fixed and thanks

:D

[nickinSTL]

3. how about...

I'll vote for a Green if I think they're the best candidate, but wouldn't knowingly vote for a Green backed by Repub money.

[LynneSin]

6. I think that's the second option

"I'll pick the best from Green & Dem tickets usually but would not vote for a Green supported by Republicans"

I could have made so many options available but figured this covered the basics and then leave an other!

[wyldwolf]

4. you see, its all about principle

Since the Green message is vastly superior to that of the Democrats' (and the Republicans, since their ain't no difference anyway), the Greens have to get the message out one way or the other. If that means taking Republican money and helping Republicans win, so be it. The Democrats need to be taught a lesson!

[welshTerrier2]

9. exactly ... it's all about principle ...

that's exactly the reason the Dems turn down corporate money ... corporations have no real commitment to the country ... they send their money to both Democrats and republicans hoping to hedge their votes and buy influence regardless of which party wins the election ...

thankfully, Dems never fall for that old trick ... that's why they turn down the millions and millions of corporate campaign funds ...

[wyldwolf]

11. see? see? No fuckin' difference! GREENS RULE!

[welshTerrier2]

17. atta boy !!!

that's tellin 'em ...

don't let those stupid Greens get away with that holier than thou crap ... our party stands up and says loud and clear "NO F*ing WAY" to tainted corporate money ...

the republicans and their Greenie Beanies may try to buy themselves an election but we Dems rise above that cynical garbage ...

i'm with you all the way on this one, Mr. W ...

[wyldwolf]

18. fuckin' A! NO DIFFERENCE! All that good stuff Democrats did?

... that the Republicans opposed? BULLSHIT! All of it.

VIVA La Revolution! The only way to achieve true progressive utopia is to burn the Democratic party down and replace it with us two-percenters who KNOW BEST!

[welshTerrier2]

21. publically financed campaigns are a communist plot ...

the Stalinists are trying to trick us ... don't be fooled ... even the activist judges agree that money is free speech ... and you know how evil they are ...

the path to glory lies in the accumulation of wealth and power ... don't fall prey to the tyranny of those calling for publically financed campaigns ...

communist bastards!!

how dare they question the sources of our campaign funds !!!!!

[wyldwolf]

24. then we are in agreement, comrad! NO DIFFERENCE in the two parties!

[welshTerrier2]

27. yes, we are in agreement

there is indeed no difference between the two parties ... all Greens are communists and all communists are Greens ...

[truebrit71]

5. No option for "Fuck The Green Party"...???

Count this as one vote.

[LynneSin]

7. I'm trying not to flame war here

Just pick the first option :D

[Radical Activist]

8. Many Democrats take money from the same special interests as the GOP.

So what exactly is the difference? Maybe I should stop voting for Democrats who get money from the same sources as Republicans?

[pepperbear]

10. not quite....I think this is the old....

divide and conquer routine...it's not a matter of the money but where it is coming from so close to the election and WHY. It doesn't take a slide rule to figure out that helping the Greens (which traditionally doesn't have a chance)only serves to divide the democratic voters.

[Radical Activist]

14. I think all voters

are smart enough to know the consequence of voting Green in a close race like that one. If they feel strongly enough that they can't vote for Casey then they probably have a pretty good reason for doing so.

Where money is coming from and why are very important questions. Where does the special interest money going to both parties come from and why do they give that money? I don't think taking that money is any less offensive that what the Greens are doing.

[LynneSin]

16. But we're talking 2 different issues here

You're absolutely right that we should question where the money comes from for the campaigning. But this is not the topic of the poll. I'm asking that knowing that the Green party took the money from republicans to get on the ballot, money that without they would not have been on that ticket.

[LynneSin]

12. Good question and here is your answer

Bob Casey could refuse all money from special interests and even people who happen to have contributed to both democrats & republicans but yet he would have still gotten his name on the ballot because he would have had no challenges getting 67k signatures to put his name on the ballot.

Carl Romanelli tried to get 67K signatures and was not suceeding until Rick Santorum & friends stepped in and paid a company to help gathering the signatures needed. In a nutshell, if Santorum had not helped there would be no Green candidate just like there is no Constitution, Libertarian or any other 3rd party candidate on the ballot since none of those parties received help from either the democratic or republican party to gather the required signatures needed

We're not talking about HOW the campaign is paid for here. WE're talking about HOW the candidate got on the ticket in the first place. Clearly if the will of Pennsylvanians was to have a green candidate those signatures would have been filled out easily and without outside intervention. So in all reality, it was never the will of Pennsylvanians that put the candidate on the ticket but the will of paid signature gatherers who are paid by the number of signatures they gather (and paid for by the republican party).

So that is the difference

[Radical Activist]

13. If its really the will of PA voters

to not have a Green Party candidate then they won't vote for the Green and you have nothing to worry about.
67,000 signature is a lot. How many signatures do Republicans and Democrats have to get in PA? Is this yet another case of state laws working to thwart the will of the people and limit voter choice?

I won't question that the PA Greens are too disorganized and underfunded to get on the ballot on their own, but PA voters still had to sign the petitions, no matter where the workers came from.

[LynneSin]

15. or the signatures?

You have a point that the PA laws are pretty stringent; it's based on 2% of the top vote getter from the previous statewide general election, which oddly enough was Bob Casey in 2004.

But I also see it as a matter of principles. Here's a party that says we democrats are no different than republicans (and sometimes that is true) and yet they are willing to take the money from the republican party in order to get on the ticket.

I've been on a rant for this for 2 days, but if all the major 3 party groups had access to the republican money then perhaps my argument would be moot. But the Santorum people specifically gave to the one party that would pull voters from Casey and did not help the 2 parties that are more aligned with their political ideologies (Constitution and Libertarian).

And btw, you're right - more than likely this won't make a hoot of difference. But to me it's just exposing the Green Party to some of it's hypocrisy and I think this is a major one. They are knowingly being used but don't care

[OzarkDem]

25. PA voters have already spoken

If enough of them wanted Greens on the ballot, they would have signed their petition. The fact that Greens haven't gotten enough signatures indicates not enough PA voters want them. Case closed. The petition signature is the vote and Greens lost that election.

[welshTerrier2]

19. the correct answer: publically financed campaigns

Democrats are not going to have any credibility with most Greens if they argue that Greens should vote for Democrats because republicans helped the Greens ... the Greens I know, and i know and regularly argue with quite a few, vote Green primarily because they see the two major parties being financed by corporations and they see both parties totally caving in to the corporate agenda ...

the point is NOT whether they are right or wrong; the point is that they see Democrats "living in glass houses" on this issue ...

the real problem is that money is corrupting our political process and we shouldn't allow it to continue ... we should not allow one party to cynically fund a third party and we should not allow corporate empires to finance the two major parties ...

arguing only half of the equation is DOA ... i agree with the case you're making but it's DOA nevertheless ... to say that we need to stop the corrupt funding of all parties is credible; to tell Greens, who are desperate for every dollar, that they should rise above this unethical republican conduct rings pretty hollow when the Democrats and republicans both hold out their hands for corporate contributions ...

the correct answer is: we need public financing ... push for that and your argument here gains far more credibility and force ...

[LynneSin]

20. For once I agree with you - Public Financing

And to be honest, the PA laws are pretty ridiculous that you ned 67k signatures

[welshTerrier2]

23. please clarify ...

i'm not clear if you're arguing for more than 67K signatures or fewer ...

and i'm deadly serious on the point about publically funded campaigns ... you want to argue it's bullshit for republicans to fund the Green party? you'll get no argument from me as long as you are pushing to get ALL CORRUPT MONEY out of the political process ... when it's one sided and only the feeble Greens are to be regulated, it just sounds more like Dem cheerleading than consistent policy ...

one approach clearly won't sell to Greens; the other might ... one way you make enemies and the other you MIGHT make a few more allies ... personally, i think it's important to build credibility on public financing NOT just with Greens but also with non-voters ... there are tens of millions of people who don't vote at all ... many of them believe both parties are selling our government to the highest bidder ... whether they're right or not, calling for public financing is an argument they should support ... let's stop letting the bad guys "contribute" to campaigns ... that just can never pass the smell test ... they aren't pumping in millions to make America better ...

[theanarch]

28. a question:

does PA's 2% requirement apply to ALL political parties, or just those that aren't D's and R's? In some states, non-D/R's have to get a staggering amount of signatures, while the D/R's need only a very small fraction thereof. The whole issue here is ballot access: like gerrymandering, whereby D's and R's carve up election districts to make super-safe, non-competative seats for both of them (with the majority going to whichever party controls the state legislature at the time), ballot access is just another method for the Duopoly to maintain their hegemony over the electoral process. With less restrictive access laws, third parties would not have to resort to these kinds of contradictions.

In the interests of transparency, i consider myself a "stop-light" voter: Green when i can, Red if i have to (almost any Socialist-Hyphen will do), but never yellow. Needless to say, i will never vote for a Republican under any circumstances.

[LynneSin]

29. I do believe it's the 3rd party standard requirement and not for Repub/Dem

I've read it somewhere, will look it up later if you like

[theanarch]

30. that won't be necessary...

...but i do appreciate the offer. Here in Jersey, all parties are equal, and the signature requirements are rediculously low--100 for US House, and 800 for US Senate, for instance. Not only that, but unless there is something obviously wrong with the nominating petition (say, most or all signatures appear to be in the same handwriting), petitions are usually accepted without examination, unless specificly challenged by another candidate/campaign/party.

On a broader level, our Constitution, which establishes the kind of electoral/governing processes we have, is a pretty second-rate system; the winner-take-all nature of it creates an artifical "either-or" choice, when a European-style, proportional-representation system would serve us/U.S. better. Like it or not, both D's and R's need third parties, not only to keep them honest, but also as a source of new ideas to adopt (or steal, depending on your view). The institutional lock-outs to third parties--restrictive ballot-access requirements; the repeal of equal-time requirements for television/radio; lack of public financing; the "corporate personhood rights" of special interests to bankroll campaigns; etc.--are not only choking off the flow of ideas and perspectives that keep a political/electoral system relevant and interesting, it's also turning off citizens to the very idea of voting/participating itself.

[LynneSin]

31. The problem is we need overall election reform

the system we have today was created 200+ years ago by Men who never dreamed of a world where news was delivered in an instant with 24 News Channels and Internet access. Our country has evolved but our method of voting has not and is in sore need of an overhaul.

Until we have election reform we are going to have to deal with a 2-party system because if I was given the option of voting for a bad democrat, a republican and a green whose ideals match mine better - I can guarentee every single time I will vote for the democrat because the middle choice is still better than the worst choice.

Personally, I like the Louisana system where if neither candidate has 50% you do a runoff of the top 2 candidates. I think that is an excellent way of guarenteeing that I could at least vote my concious the first election and then vote the lesser of 2 evils in the next one. And perhaps conscious voting might start putting 3rd party candidates in office.

I know there are plenty of ideas but lets face it - right now what we have doesn't work.

[OzarkDem]

22. Gaming the system in PA

The reason its not easy for parties to get on the ballot in any state is because its necessary for parties to demonstrate they have the support of a significant number of the state's voters and are not just getting on the ballot to "send a message" or spoil a candidate's chances of winning.

Green voters in PA have many opportunities to send their message about issues to voters. If the voters haven't responded to them, then so be it.

[mainegreen]

26. No I would not vote for him. I only vote for people publicly financed.

Of course we have one of the best clean election funding laws in the country in Maine. :D

[Bjorn Against]

32. I will vote Green, but not for Greens who take tainted money

In fact I will even volunteer for the Green Party, and I was a delegate at their national convention in 2004.

Now before the flames come, please listen to what I have to say because I am on the side of both Greens and Democrats. I believe that the two party system is undemocratic at its core, and I believe very strongly that we need a multi-party system in this country. I vote the way I think will have the greatest benefit for Democracy.

At the Green Party National Convention I originally had planned to vote for No Candidate No Endorsement which is a binding nomination under Green Party rules. It was very clear however when I got there that a candidate was going to be endorsed, it was between either Nader or Cobb and after I saw some of Nader's tactics I knew it was essential that he was stopped so I voted for Cobb. I think most Democrats who followed the Cobb campaign would have to admit that he did some great things, and not only did he not harm the Kerry campaign but he actually helped them. When the Republicans stole Ohio he was right there to file suit. He raised large sums of money to try to get a recount not to benefit himself, but to benefit Democracy. He is an incredibly good person, and I am really glad he was on the ballot in Ohio as I am sure many others who are concerned about election fraud are as well.

Now I live in Minnesota, which was thought of as a swing state so I did not vote for Cobb in the general election but I used vote swap to get someone in Nebraska to pledge to vote for him for me so while I casted a vote for Kerry here in Minnesota.

I support the Green platform, and find it far superior to anything the Democrats have offered. I also however find it very important that Republicans are defeated, so I do use common sense in determining when to vote Green and when to vote Democratic.