CHICAGO MAYORAL PETITION CUT IN HALF

On August 22, Illinois House Bill 1968 was signed into law. It cuts the petitioning requirement for candidates for Mayor of Chicago from 25,000 signatures, to 12,500 signatures. The bill makes the same change for the other citywide offices, Treasurer and City Clerk.

The new petition requirement is still far too difficult. New York city requires 7,500 signatures; Los Angeles requires 1,000. Nevertheless, 12,500 is the easiest requirement for Chicago citywide office (for candidates other than Democrats and Republicans) since 1931. Between 1931, minor party and independent candidates needed a petition of 5% of the last vote cast, which was usually about 50,000 signatures. No minor party or independent candidate ever qualified under the 5% standard, except in 1975, when the Socialist Workers Party qualified its citywide slate. Its candidate for Mayor, Willie Mae Reed, polled 2.39%.

In 1977 a federal court invalidated the 5% petition requirement, on the grounds that it is not logical to require more signatures to run for an office in just part of the state, than in the state as a whole. Since minor party and independent candidates for statewide office needed 25,000 signatures, the court said it is not even rational to require a number higher than 25,000. The United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld this decision in 1979.

The 1979 session of the legislature changed the Chicago requirement to 25,000. That new requirement was as difficult as the legislature could make it, without running afoul of the Court decision.

But starting in 1999, Chicago citywide offices became non-partisan offices, not partisan offices. This meant that even Republicans and Democrats had to collect 25,000 signatures to run for citywide office.

Earlier, Democrats and Republicans only needed a petition of one-half of 1% of their own party’s last general election vote for the office. This generally meant that Democrats only needed 4,000 signatures, and Republicans needed 1,500. Any voter could sign these primary petitions.

Once even Republicans and Democrats needed 25,000 signatures, suddenly (after over 70 years) the mainstream media, and influential figures, began agitating that 25,000 signatures is far too severe. This agitation caused the legislature to cut the number. This is the first time since 1927 that the Illinois legislature has voluntarily eased any type of ballot access.

On August 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, ruled that a postal office regulation that bars petitioning on all post office sidewalks is almost certainly unconstitutional. Initiative & Referendum Institute v U.S. Postal Service, 04-5045. The vote was 3-0.

The court sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for one more finding before making a final decision. The lower court must determine if a substantial number of post office sidewalks are parallel to streets. If so, the regulation is void on its face. The decision said that since the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in the past that all forms of First Amendment activity must be permitted on the Supreme Court’s own sidewalks, therefore the same logic applies to similar post office sidewalks. The Supreme Court sidewalks are parallel to First Street N.E. in Washington.

If the regulation is invalid, the post office might create a new regulation in the future, banning petitioning on some of its sidewalks but not others. The decision does not decide whether that new hypothetical regulation would be valid; that would be the subject of future litigation.

The North Carolina legislature adjourned on August 24, after failing to pass any ballot access reform. H88, which would have made the greatest improvements, passed the House Finance Committee on August 23. Unfortunately, on August 24, the bill was amended on the House floor so that it does more damage than good. H88 then passed the House.

The Senate did not vote on H88, so the bill did not pass this year. North Carolina has a two-year legislative session, so it could pass next year.

The original H88 made some very good changes and some less important bad changes. The amended bill removed the positive changes and left the negative changes intact, so it is now a harmful bill. Of course, next year, when the bill is taken up again, it could be amended again.

The only improvements in the amended bill are to lower the number of signatures for a statewide independent from 2% of the registered voters, to 2% of the last gubernatorial vote. But a court mandated this change last year anyway, so that is not much of a gain. The only other improvement in the amended bill lowers the vote test for a party to remain on the ballot from 10% for president or governor, to 7%.

The bad changes in the amended bill move the new party petition deadline from May to March, and impose filing fees on the nominees of new parties and independent candidates.

Other Bills

H1024, which would have let a few counties experiment with Instant-Runoff voting, also failed to pass.

A provision in an omnibus election law bill (H1115) that would have lowered the number of signatures for statewide independents also failed.

On August 12, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled unanimously that if two or more parties want to hold a blanket primary with each other, they may do so. State of Alaska v Green Party of Alaska, S-11272.

Alaska law lets parties decide which voters to invite into their primary. But the law says each party must have its own primary ballot. The Green, Republican Moderate, Libertarian, Democratic and Alaskan Independence Parties all want to use a blanket primary ballot (in which candidates from all those different parties appear on the same primary ballot). Now, those parties can hold the kind of primary they wish. The Green and Republican Moderate Parties had filed the case, and the other three parties had joined them later. Since the parties had won this case in the lower court as well, they all used a blanket primary in 2004. Only the Republicans use a separate primary ballot.

The U.S. Supreme Court in May 2005 had ruled that freedom of association does not go so far as to let parties invite members of other parties to vote in their primaries. That case, called Clingman v Beaver, was from Oklahoma. The Alaska Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of the Clingman decision. However, the Alaska court said that the Alaska Constitution gives more protection for freedom of association than the U.S. Constitution does.

The Alaska decision also said that there is no state interest in promoting the two-party system. This remark, while analytically somewhat oblique (since no one in this case defined "two-party system," and there is great confusion about this term’s meaning), bodes well for the pending ballot access cases in Alaska.

Alaska Ballot Access Cases

Still pending in the Alaska Supreme Court is the Green Party’s case against the state’s definition of "political party" that was in effect before 2004.

That old definition required a party to either have registration of 3% of the last gubernatorial vote, or to poll 3% for Governor. The Green Party met neither test in 2002, but it did poll over 3% for the other statewide offices. That case is Green Party v State, S-11964.

In 2004, the legislature made the definition of "party" even more restrictive. Now it must either have registration of 2% of the statewide total, or it must have polled 3% for Governor at the last gubernatorial election and polled 3% for U.S. Senate at the last presidential election (and if U.S. Senate wasn’t up, then it must have polled 3% for U.S. House). On August 23, the Green Party of Alaska filed a new lawsuit against the new definition of "party." Green Party of Alaska II v State, 3-AN-05-10787.

California: SB 1050 is expected to pass the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 25. It legalizes write-ins when the voter forgets to "x" the box next to the name.

Massachusetts: H77, to lower the number of signatures for a statewide petition from 10,000 to 5,000, has a hearing on September 20 in the Joint Election Law Committee.

Michigan: on August 10, HB 5082 was introduced. It would relax the requirement that a qualified minor party certify the name of its presidential candidate within 24 hours after the national convention adjourns.

Pennsylvania: the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition has finished drafting its bills, and is looking for legislative sponsors.

On August 2, President Bush signed HR 2985. It requires the states to hold special elections to fill vacancies in the U.S. House within 49 days, if at least 100 members of the House have died. Congress exercised its power under Article One of the Constitution, which lets congress write laws that supercede state laws concerning congressional elections.

Alaska: on August 2, a U.S. District Court invalidated part of the state Judicial Conduct Code that prohibits candidates in judicial retention elections from announcing their views on disputed political, legal and social issues. Alaska Right to Life PAC v Feldman, A04-0239.

Minnesota: on August 2, the 8^th circuit invalidated state rules that made it illegal for candidates for judicial posts to attend meetings of political parties. Republican Party of Minnesota v White, 99-4021.

New Hampshire: on July 22, a lower state court upheld the state’s access laws for minor party candidates. Libertarian Party v State, 05-E-004. Plaintiffs will appeal.

Pennsylvania: on August 2, a state court ruled that all write-ins should be counted, even though some were not in the proper slot on voting machines. The decision changed the outcome of a primary election for two county offices. Petition to Accumulate Write-in Votes, GD05-16656, Allegheny County.

Puerto Rico: on August 3, the 1^st circuit ruled 5-2 that Puerto Rico citizens do not have a right to vote for president when they live in Puerto Rico (ironically, if they move to a state and then move to a foreign country, they may vote). Igartua v United States, 04-2186. The court said, "The U.S. has signed numerous treaties. Some are merely aspirational and not law in any sense…the Universal Declaration of Human Rights creates goals but not legal obligations. This is true also of the Inter-American Democratic Charter."

On August 10, the Arkansas Attorney General issued a ruling, saying that new party petitions cannot be circulated during odd years. This contradicts a Secretary of State ruling of January 24, 2005. The Secretary of State’s legal advisor, Tim Humphries, says that the Attorney General Opinion does not have the force of law and that the Secretary of State will not follow it.

After the People Vote, A Guide to the Electoral College, edited by John C. Fortier. Published 2004 by the American Enterprise Institute, 1150 17^th St. NW, Washington DC 20036. Paperback, 103 pages. The original price is $15, but copies are available on Amazon.com for $12.75.

The American Enterprise Institute has published three versions of this book, in 1980, 1992 and 2004. The series has been influential, because the mainstream press considers the book to be the "Bible" for facts about the electoral college. The American Enterprise Institute supports the existing electoral college, and the first two versions of the book carried arguments only in favor of that system. The current version carries two essays in favor of the electoral college (one by Walter Berns and one by Martin Diamond) and one against, by law professors Akhil Amar and Vikram Amar.

Even though the book has been issued three times, it still contains misleading and incorrect data. All three versions of the book have a list of the "faithless electors" throughout U.S. history. In each case, the list omits all 67 instances at which electors were "faithless" in vice-presidential voting. Instead, it lists only ten instances at which electors were "faithless" in the presidential vote (and even that list isn’t complete). The years of "faithless electors" for vice-president but not for president were 1812, 1828, 1832, 1836 and 1896. The faithless electors in 1836 prevented anyone from receiving a majority of the electoral college vote for vice-president. As a result, the U.S. Senate had to choose the vice-president in 1837.

The book’s problem is exacerbated because the book does not define "faithless elector." For example, what is one to make of a candidate for presidential elector who is jointly the nominee of two different political parties?

In Tennessee in 1948, the Democratic Party and the States Rights Party had jointly nominated two electors. Both of them had said before the election that if elected, they would vote for Strom Thurmond, nominee of the States Rights Party. They both were elected. One voted for Truman (thereby breaking his word to the voters) and is not listed as a "faithless elector." The other one, Preston Parks, did vote for Thurmond (as he said he would do), but he is listed as "faithless."

Or consider the example of Richie Robb, a Republican elector from West Virginia in 2004. Before the election, Robb said (if he were elected) he would not vote for President Bush in the electoral college. But Robb did get elected and he did vote for Bush, saying that the popular vote for Bush in his state was so large that he had changed his mind.

If one defines "faithless elector" as someone who refuses to vote for his or her party’s national nominees, then the list of faithless electors would exceed 125, since the Democratic electors in Alabama in 1968 voted for George Wallace, not Hubert Humphrey; the Republican electors in California and South Dakota in 1912 voted for Theodore Roosevelt, not William Howard Taft; and the Democratic electors in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Louisiana in 1948 voted for Strom Thurmond, not Harry Truman.

Therefore, a definition of "faithless elector" would need to explain whether a "faithless elector" is someone who votes differently than he or she had said before the November election; or whether it is someone who defies the will of his or her national party convention; or both.

One of the criticisms of the electoral college is that it puts the power to choose the president into the hands of 535 relatively obscure people. Defenders of the electoral college minimize this argument by saying that the electors virtually always act as "rubber stamps." But if the true number of "faithless electors" were better known, this argument would lose its effectiveness.

Walter Berns, a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, and editor of the 1992 book, wrote a letter dated July 11, 2005, which says, in response to this criticism, "I have no reason to doubt your statistics concerning the vote for vice president, but we here have always defined a ‘faithless elector’ as one whose ‘infidelity’ is intended to affect the vote for president." Of course, as already noted above, the book does not define "faithless elector," so a reader would not know that the American Enterprise Institute has limited its definition of "faithless elector" to exclude vice-presidential voting.

Another flaw in the book is its Appendix H, titled "Electoral college and Popular Vote Outcomes of All Elections." It seems to list all the individuals who received an electoral vote for president, but this list is incomplete. For example, the 1972 entry says that Richard Nixon received 520 electoral votes and that George McGovern received 17. It does not say that John Hospers, the Libertarian presidential candidate, received one electoral vote, yet in truth he did.

The chart also says that Horace Greeley received 66 electoral votes in 1872, yet actually he received three votes. He had died after the November election, but before the electors voted in December, so only three of his electors had voted for him. The other 63 electors voted for other Democrats. An asterisk does explain this, but the people who received electoral votes aren’t listed.

Another indicator that the book is not objective is found in the chapter on the 2000 election. Although the chapter is comprehensive when it describes the legal battle to decide who won the election, it doesn’t mention the findings of the News Consortium that re-counted all the votes. On November 12, 2001, newspapers released the findings: if all the votes had been recounted, Gore would have won. However, if the only votes recounted had been the votes Gore wanted recounted, he would have lost.

The Federal Election Commission recognizes nationally-organized political parties if they have national party officers, run a presidential candidate who was on the ballot under the party label in at least two states, and run congressional candidates under the party label in at least two states, and have a national meeting to choose presidential candidates. The FEC has been evaluating various minor parties to see if they meet these standards ever since 1975.

The chart on page four uses the FEC standards back through the nation’s history, to see how many parties (as defined by the FEC) have existed in the U.S. The chart shows the first election year, and last election year, that each party met the FEC standard. Finally, it shows each party’s best presidential year, and its best U.S. House year (expressed as a the vote received by the party’s nominees, as a percentage of the total vote cast in the nation).

An * indicates a party that first met the FEC standard, then went dormant, and then again met the standard. These are the Prohibitionists (which didn’t meet the standard in 1978, then came back briefly in 1980); the Socialist Party (which went dormant in 1960, came back in 1980, went dormant again until 2000, and has met the standard since); and the Communist Party, dormant in 1944 and 1948-1970.

The FEC has not formally announced these standards. One can only glean them from reading the various rulings, acknowledging particular minor parties as "national committees." In 1975 the FEC recognized the Libertarian Party even though it had only been on the ballot for president in two states in 1972. In December 1980 the FEC recognized the Socialist Party, even though it had only placed U.S. House nominees on the ballot in two states in 1980. The FEC’s more recent rulings have been more stringent and inconsistent. Therefore, an editorial decision was made to use the earlier FEC standards. For the sake of historical consistency, only U.S. House candidates were considered. The U.S. held no U.S. Senate elections until 1914. Therefore, including U.S. Senate elections would have artificially eased the standards midway through history.

Note that this list of "parties" can counteract the impression that the United States has held a plethora of political parties. Only 46 parties have existed throughout history, when the FEC standard is applied, and it is a very modest standard. Only twelve parties ever polled as much as 5% of the U.S. House vote: Democratic, Republican, Whig, National Republican, Federalist, Socialist, Progressive, Peoples, Greenback, American (Know-Nothing), Free Soil, and Anti-Masonic.

There was no nationally-organized Progressive Party in 1924. Robert La Follette explicitly did not create a party in 1924; instead, he ran an independent presidential campaign with the label "Progressive." Similarly, George Wallace did not create a national party in 1968. No national convention chose him; no national party officers existed; there wasn’t even a national label. Wallace let his supporters in each state choose a label, which was "American" in 17 states, "American Independent" in 12 states, "George Wallace Party" in 8 states, "independent" in 9 states, "Independent American" in one state, and "Courage" in one state. Also he was the nominee of the Alabama Democratic Party and the Kansas Conservative Party.

Ballot Access News thanks Michael Dubin for assistance with the "best U.S. House year" column. Dubin’s United States Congressional Elections 1788-1997 is the only source for a complete list of congressional candidates and their vote totals. Although this invaluable reference book does not total up the vote for all of a party’s nominees, in any particular year, a newer version of this same book will contain that data. In the meantime, Dubin kindly shared some of that data. Any errors in the chart are not the responsibility of Dubin, but instead should be laid to B.A.N.

POLITICAL PARTY	BEGIN	END	BEST PRESIDENTIAL YEAR	BEST U.S. HOUSE YEAR
Democratic	1792	Ongoing	1804, Jefferson, 72.86%	1818, 70.13%
Republican	1854	Ongoing	1972, Nixon, 60.69%	1920, 58.13%
Prohibition*	1870	1980	1892, Bidwell, 2.25%	1886, 2.97%
Socialist Labor	1890	1976	1896, Matchett, .26%	1898, .56%
Socialist*	1898	Ongoing	1912, Debs, 5.99%	1912, 6.35%
Socialist Workers	1946	2000	1976, Camejo, .11%	1972, .08%
Communist*	1922	1984	1932, Foster, .26%	1938, .37%
Libertarian	1974	Ongoing	1980, Clark, 1.06%	2000, 1.77%
Federalist	1789	1818	1796, Adams, unknown %	Unknown, probably 1798
People’s	1890	1908	1892, Weaver, 8.53%	1894, 11.44%
Whig	1834	1852	1840, Harrison, 52.87%	1838, 47.88%
American	1970	1984	1972, Schmitz, 1.42%	1972, .28%
Constitution	1992	Ongoing	1996, Phillips, .19%	1998, .21%
Natural Law	1992	2002	1996, Hagelin, .12%	1996, .63%
Green	1996	Ongoing	2000, Nader, 2.74%	2002, .42%
Reform	1996	Ongoing	1996, Perot, 8.40%	1998, .52%
National Republican	1826	1834	1828, Adams, 43.96%	1828, 37.74%
Greenback	1876	1884	1880, Weaver, 3.35%	1878, 12.18%
Farmer-Labor	1920	1928	1920, Christensen, .99%	1924, 1.81%
Single Tax	1918	1926	1920, Macauley, .02%	1920, .01%
Populist	1984	1992	1992, Gritz, .10%	1990, .09%
Liberty	1840	1846	1844, Birney, 2.30%	1844, 1.94%
Progressive	1948	1954	1948, Henry Wallace, 2.38%	1948, 1.91%
American Independent	1974	1980	1976, Maddox, .21%	1974, .40%
Anti-Masonic	1830	1834	1832, Wirt, 8.00%	1832, 14.48%
Free Soil	1848	1852	1848, Van Buren, 10.13%	1848, 8.63%
American (Know-Nothing)	1854	1858	1856, Fillmore, 21.08%	1854, 19.57%
Progressive	1912	1916	1912, T. Roosevelt, 27.42%	1912, 15.31%
U.S. Labor	1974	1978	1976, LaRouche, .05%	1976, .15%
People’s	1972	1976	1972, Spock, .10%	1974, .10%
Citizens	1980	1984	1980, Commoner, .27%	1980, .08%
New Alliance	1988	1992	1988, Fulani, .24%	1990, .09%
Union Labor	1888	1890	1888, Streeter, 1.30%	1888, 1.22%
Independence	1906	1908	1908, Hisgen, .56%	1906, .79%
Union	1936	1938	1936, Lemke, 1.96%	1936, .81%
Peace and Freedom	1968	1970	1968, Cleaver, .05%	1968, .09%
Southern Rights	1850	1852	1852, Troup, .07%	1850, 3.51%
Native American	1852	1852	1852, Broome, .08%	1852, .31%
Constitutional Union	1860	1860	1860, Bell, 12.61%	1860, .72%
Breckinridge Democratic	1860	1860	1860, Breckinridge, 18.20%	1860, 3.16%
Straight Democratic	1872	1872	1872, O’Conor, .46%	1872, .02%
National Democratic	1896	1896	1896, Palmer, .97%	1896, .87%
National	1896	1896	1896, Bentley, .10%	1896, .03%
Union Reform	1900	1900	1900, Ellis, .04%	1900, .02%
American	1924	1924	1924, Nations, .08%	1924, .03%
Liberty	1932	1932	1932, Harvey, .13%	1932, .22%

 

STATE	REQUIREMENTS		SIGNATURES COLLECTED					Deadline
	FULL PARTY	CAND	LIB'T	GREEN	CONSTI	NAT LAW	REFORM
Alabama	41,012	41,012	1,200	0	0	0	0	in court
Alaska	(reg) 9,258	#3,128	already on	in court	0	0	0	Aug. 22
Ariz.	26,835	est. #20,000	already on	0	0	0	0	June 14
Arkansas	10,000	10,000	*500	0	0	0	0	May 1
Calif.	(reg) 77,389	165,573	already on	already on	already on	already on	39,328	Aug. 11
Colorado	(reg) 1,000	#1,000	already on	already on	already on	534	337	July 10
Connecticut	no procedure	#7,500	already on	0	already on	0	0	Aug. 11
Delaware	est. (reg) 280	est. 5,600	already on	already on	already on	257	211	July 15
D.C.	no procedure	est. #3,800	can't start	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug. 30
Florida	be organized	pay fee	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	July 18
Georgia	42,676	#42,676	already on	0	0	0	0	July 11
Hawaii	648	25	already on	already on	0	already on	0	July 25
Idaho	11,968	5,984	already on	0	already on	already on	0	Aug. 31
Illinois	no procedure	#25,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	June 26
Indiana	no procedure	#29,553	already on	*5,000	0	0	0	June 30
Iowa	no procedure	#1,500	0	0	0	0	0	Aug. 18
Kansas	16,477	5,000	already on	0	0	0	already on	July 31
Kentucky	no procedure	#2,400	0	0	0	0	0	Aug. 8
La.	(reg) 1,000	pay fee	already on	*already on	47	20	already on	Sep. 7
Maine	24,798	#4,000	0	already on	0	0	0	May 25
Maryland	10,000	est. 29,400	already on	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 7
Mass.	est. (reg) 41,000	#10,000	23,900	9,509	56	44	1,168	Aug. 1
Michigan	31,731	31,731	already on	already on	already on	already on	0	July 20
Minnesota	141,420	#2,000	0	0	0	0	0	July 18
Mississippi	be organized	1,000	already on	already on	already on	already on	already on	April 7
Missouri	10,000	10,000	already on	0	0	0	0	July 31
Montana	5,000	#5,000	already on	0	*700	0	0	May 30
Nebraska	4,735	2,500	300	3,500	0	0	0	Aug. 29
Nevada	7,915	7,915	already on	0	already on	0	0	July 7
New Hamp.	20,299	#3,000	*25	0	0	0	0	Aug. 9
New Jersey	no procedure	#800	0	0	0	0	0	June 6
New Mex.	3,782	14,079	0	already on	already on	0	0	July 11
New York	no procedure	#15,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug. 22
No. Car.	69,734	law is void	*26,000	8,900	0	0	0	June 30
No. Dakota	7,000	1,000	0	0	0	0	0	Sep. 8
Ohio	56,280	5,000	in court	0	0	0	0	May 1
Oklahoma	73,188	pay fee	in court	0	0	0	0	June 21
Oregon	18,381	18,356	already on	already on	already on	0	0	Aug. 29
Penn.	no procedure	#66,827	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	Aug. 1
Rhode Isl.	21,815	#1,000	can't start	can’t start	can't start	can't start	can't start	July 20
So. Caro.	10,000	10,000	already on	already on	already on	0	already on	July 15
So. Dakota	8,364	#3,346	already on	0	already on	0	0	June 6
Tennessee	41,314	25	0	0	0	0	0	April 6
Texas	45,253	45,253	already on	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	May 11
Utah	2,000	#1,000	already on	*already on	already on	0	0	Mar. 17
Vermont	be organized	#1,000	already on	already on	0	0	0	Sep. 21
Virginia	no procedure	#10,000	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	June 13
Washington	no procedure	in court	can’t start	can't start	can't start	can't start	can't start	July 7
West Va.	no procedure	#8,724	0	0	0	0	0	May 8
Wisconsin	10,000	#2,000	already on	already on	already on	0	0	July 11
Wyoming	4,774	4,774	already on	0	0	0	0	Aug. 28
TOTAL STATES ON			27	*17	16	6	5	-

3 states (Ky., La., N.C.) have no statewide race, so chart shows requirement for a party to run a full slate for U.S. House.
*change since the June 1 chart.
#partisan label is permitted (other than "indp.").
"Deadline" means the procedure with the latest deadline.

California will hold a special election on October 4, to fill a vacant seat in the 48^th district in southern Orange County. The Constitution Party’s nominee will be Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minutemen. Gilchrist is well known, and his entry into the race on August 18 was reported prominently. A Libertarian and a Green are also running.

---

SUBSCRIBING TO BAN WITH PAYPAL

If you use Paypal, you can subscribe to B.A.N., or renew, with Paypal. If you use a credit card in connection with Paypal, use ban@richardwinger.com. If you don’t use a credit card in conjunction with Paypal, use sub@richardwinger.com.