COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections) held its annual Board meeting in New York city on June 16. COFOE was founded in 1985 and is a loose coalition of most of the nation’s nationally-organized minor parties, as well as other organizations that support fair treatment for minor parties. Representatives attended from the Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Reform Parties, from the Committee for a United Independent Party (CUIP), and from the Ralph Nader 2004 campaign organization. Also, an observer was present from the Working Families Party, and a representative was present from Unity08.
The group discussed hopes that an initiative will be circulated in Oklahoma this fall, asking the voters if they wish to reduce the ballot access hurdles for new and minor political parties. Greater coordination between the group in Oklahoma that is working on this goal, and COFOE, will be sought, particularly on how to raise funds.
On other business, the COFOE Board passed three resolutions. The first resolution puts COFOE on record as opposing public financing that establishes different standards for qualifying, based on party affiliation or lack thereof.
The second resolution declares that political parties should be free to nominate any candidate for public office who meets the constitutional qualifications to hold that office.
The third resolution supports the right of U.S. citizens living in U.S. territories and commonwealths to vote for president and for presidential electors.
WHOM was present from the so called reform movement?
If COFOE is reaching out to Guam, The Marshall Islands, PR, U. S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, DC, why wasn’t these types present also? Huh?
God Bless COFOE! The United States’ mangled electorial process has been a joke for AT LEAST the last century!
I was happy to participate on behalf of the Constitution Party!
I’m glad COFOE is around but I think the vote to oppose public financing systems unless they give equal funding to all political parties is a huge mistake for at least 3 reasons:
1. We’ll never get a provision like that into law(it would cost billions to fund such an laissez-faire system which taxpayers would never approve, especially when they contemplated the fringe/extremist parties that might be eligible),
2. We’ll undermine and fragment support for one of the most important election reforms in history in the process,
3. and thus deny the smaller parties we’re seeking to help more money than they could ever dream of raising on their own so they can get their message out and become one of the larger parties and qualify for equal funding. (Most proposed public financing systems provide partial funding for smaller parties until they grow and meet certain benchmarks.)
I think this vote to oppose public financing is over-simplified, short-sighted, and counter-productive. I agree we should fight for “FAIR” treatment of smaller parties (which haven’t yet demonstrated broad grass roots support for their agenda) so that they’re not excluded from the election process and can be heard, but that’s not the same as “EQUAL” treatment.
Besides a smaller party doesn’t need equal treatment. It just needs access to enough funding to get their message heard by enough voters to grow and become a larger party. When they’ve proven themselves in this manner, they then deserve the equal funding we’d like to see them get.
COFOE’s resolution does not say public funding must be equal for each party. The resolution says the hurdles that each CANDIDATE must meet, must be equal. COFOE has merely endorsed the principles of equality that Maine and Arizona “Clean Elections” laws follow. Candidates must obtain a certain number of $5 contributions. Parties aren’t involved.
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! qevivvtubcnhd
Thanks for this site!
hifue.info
practical away master earliest blurred roadway coterie con.