“Sham candidates” are candidates who have no sincere interest in running for office, but who get on the ballot because one of the more powerful candidates in the same race, or one of the major parties, thinks that the sham candidate’s presence on the ballot will subtract from the total of votes that the other powerful candidate may receive. So, one of the powerful candidates, or parties, initiates the process by which the sham candidate gets on the ballot.
Virtually all attempts at running sham candidates in the general election have failed to achieve their intended purpose. The latest instance of a sham candidate was in the recent special Arizona State Senate election, prompted by a recall petition filed against State Senator Russell Pearce. Backers of Pearce arranged for a sham candidate with a Hispanic surname to appear on the ballot, in hopes that the vote against Pearce would thereby be split. But the sham candidate revealed herself to be a sham candidate by hiding from the media, doing no campaigning, and finally (when the pressure on her was intense) withdrawing from the race.
Arizona was the scene of other sham candidates in 2010. Republicans recruited several people to run in the Green Party primary (against the wishes of the Green Party), for offices for which these Republicans thought the vote would be close. These Republican activists thought that some voters who would otherwise vote for Democratic nominees would instead vote for these Green Party nominees, even though these particular Green Party candidates had no active campaign. But, again, when the publicity about the sham candidates increased, most of them withdrew, and the few who did not had no effect on who won the election.
Michigan also saw an attempt to run sham candidates in 2010. Democratic Party officials engineered a petition drive to place the Tea Party on the ballot, and arranged for the new party to hold a nominating convention and place nominees on the ballot in certain races in which the party expected the vote to be close. But, first the petition was invalidated on a technicality, and then one Democratic Party official was convicted of fraud, because the party had supposedly nominated certain individuals, but those individuals had not agreed to run, and in at least one instance the supposed candidate’s name on the declaration of candidacy was forged.
Florida saw a similar attempt in 2008, when Republican Party activists recruited five apolitical people to file to run in the Green Party primary for the legislature. These Republican Party activists saw to it that the candidates themselves did not need to pay their own filing fees. When campaign finance reports by these so-called candidates failed to reveal who had paid the filing fees, Democrats sued to obtain the information. The suit was dropped because, after the election, the candidates moved to new residences and only one could be found by the process-servers. In any event, the presence of the five sham Green Party nominees did not affect the outcome of any of the races; in each case one of the major party nominees polled over 50% of the total vote.
Colorado, in 2004, saw two sham political parties placed on the ballot, the Pro Life Party and the Gun Owners Party. The required signatures (10,000) were obtained by Democratic Party activists. However, the presence of these two sham parties had no effect on the election, because the creators of these two sham parties never found anyone to run for office under the banner of either party.
Sham candidate maneuvers generally fail because the sham candidates themselves hide from the press, don’t campaign, don’t answer the door when reporters try to visit, and so usually their motives are uncovered and publicized.
Richard, you forgot to include Scott Ashjian of the bogus “Tea Party of Nevada” as a sham candidate.
This is a very impressive overview, and I think it makes a good case. However, there is an important counterexample: Wisconsin. Six Republican sham candidates ran in the Democratic primaries when otherwise the Dems only had one candidate per recall and would not have had any primaries.
This meant the recall elections were successfully delayed by a month, allowing Democratic fervor to dim and giving the Republican incumbents more time to campaign, which was a significant advantage in these close recalls. Also, this meant that Republicans could accelerate redistricting and get it done just in time for the recalls, in case they really lost control of the Senate.
Overall, though, I think you’re right that sham candidates are rarely useful tools. A very good article.
#2, I agree with you, but I was only covering sham candidates in general elections.
in 2008, non-nbc candidate McCain could also be considered a “sham” candidate for another ineligible non-nbc candidate BO. All this created by the sham NYS-BOE soon to be outed with regards to attempting to impose a new invented definition of “born a citizen” rather then the constitutional “natural born citizen”. — The loyalist tories are still at work trying to undermine the constitution created by the rebels against the british / european based royality.
All sorts of NAME game sham candidates in primary elections with open gerrymander seats.
How many Smith, Jones, Johnson, perhaps even Winger folks living in the same gerrymander district – to be paid to run as a sham candidate — to DIVIDE and CONQUER ???
Pingback: Richard Winger: Sham Candidates Virtually Always Fail to Accomplish Anything for their Backers | Independent Political Report
Talk of “sham” candidacy usually comes from the lunatic fringe. I remember some theorized that Wes Clark entered the Democratic primary season to derail the the Dean candidacy so that there would not be a Democratic incumbent when Clark’s friend Hillary would run four years later. Yup. That’s right.
TO: Natural Born Citizen Party
Thank you for comment # 4. Both JSM III & BHO II were no even citizens. JSM III was born on August 29, 1936
at the Colon Hospital on the island of Colon in the
Republic of Panama. At the time of his birth his parents had never married (because of a sham at a bar
in TJ, Baja California, Mexico, viz., not an Office of the Baja Civil Registry) and mother was not employed
by the United States Government or the successor in title to the Panama Railroad Company, under section 2
of the Act of August 4, 1937. JSM II was only a punitive father under the terms of the Hague Convention
of Nationality of 1930.
BHO II was born on Mombasa Island on August 4, 1961. At
the time of his birth he was a Subject of the Sultan of
Zanzibar. His mother was a United States Citizen but was at the time of BHO II birth was under the age of
19 years and one day of age. On August 4, 1961, citizenship requirement was that the U S Citizen parent
had to be a resident of the United States for 10 years
and five of the 10 years had to be after the age of 14.
News. Stanley Ann and baby Barry (viz., BHO II)
departed on August 28, 1961 (not August 13, 1961 as I
was informed earlier) from Mombasa Island and arrived
at Tilbury Docks, Port of London, England, U.K. on September 20, 1961. Barry and mom flew to Montreal
and then on to Vancouver, B.C. On September 25, 1961,
Stanley Ann was a student at the University of Washington, Seattle Extention and lived on Capitol Hill,
Seattle, Washington. Note there was an open border between Canada and United States in September, 1961.
At that time the father was a student at the University
of Hawai’i. [please do not believe the dis-information
about the Honolulu birth. If you recall the campaign of
Obama in 2008, claimed that a Honolulu doctor told of the birth of that day at a dinner party at the Outrigger
Canoe Club in Waikiki. The Outrigger Canoe Club is in Diamond Head and not Waikiki. The last seating for dinner on August 4, 1961 at the Outrigger Canoe Club was
at 8:00 PM. Note the time of birth on the sham long form birth certificate released last April from the White House. One issue that some in the birther movement claim wrong with the long form is noted kerning. Yet, I recall that the IBM SELECTRIC typewriter did kerning.]
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Chairman,
American Independent Party of California
Richard
My first thought on this was
David Cobb/Patricia LaMarche 2004
I have watched Mr Cobb and I call him a smooth political huckster working for the corporate duopoly. I have challenged him on this repeatedly and he refuses to respond.
For the record, I was a supporter in 2004 and was one of the Official Green Party Observers in the 2004 Ohio Re-Count.
I am currently a candidate (not filed yet for specific reasons) running for US Senate in Minnesota. Our website has been taken over and now is a Republican site but the facebook site is still good.
Oh and I again publicly challenge David Cobb of Move To Amend on this point. To have a public, well advertised debate on it. To debate why I call him a political huckster and let him refute it and prove me wrong.
He will not do it. Just like any other Democrat who refuse to debate a determined opponent of the corporate duopoly.
Yup. To subvert your opponent, it’s both easier and more effective to provide funding to a _legitimate_ (but still fringe) candidate.
Please note
Former presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney is reporting getting death threats and FBI protection for said threats.
Meanwhile political hucksters Wayne Allan Root gets corporate media coverage and David Cobb gets strictly scripted speaking engagements at Move To Amend events.
With the moveon.org crowd in attendance.
I report- you decide which side of the corporate fence they are providing political cover for.
My open call for a public, well advertised debate stands.
I can and will expose this cheap carny act of a political huckster, if given the opportunity.
I suspect that Mr Cobb will refuse to even answer this.
Oh yes, did I forget to tell you that David Cobb, while speaking at a Move To Amend in Minneapolis a few weeks ago that
“I tell you my friends, I have been asked and no, I do not thinnk that we need a new political party.” He then went on to applaud the Democratic selected official in the room, applaud the local Democrat Congressman and a guy called Jack Nelson-Palmyer who had run for US Senate in a primary race against now Senator Al Franken. I was running for US Senate in Minnesota at the time and had challenged him to a debate, which he refused to do. Franken went on to win the Dem nomination.
But hey, David Cobb does say lots of things that sound good. Like when he came to Minneapolis in 2004, seeking the Green Party endorsement he said “My friends, I tell you that the Democratic Party is where progressive politics goes to die.”
To my utter shame, I took him at his word and supported him at the Green Party Convention that year.