The Green Party nominee for U.S. House in New York’s 24th district, in Syracuse, has sent $4,250 in campaign contributions to charities and good-government non-profit groups, because she believes the donors gave her campaign the money because the donors want the Republican nominee in that district to win. See this story. Thanks to Green Party Watch for the link. The Republican nominee, the incumbent, is Ann Marie Buerkle and the donors have also contributed to Buerkle and other Republican campaigns recently.
The three ballot-listed candidates in this race have debated each other on television. See this story.
wow… my hat is off to Ursula Rozum…. way to to take a principled approach to bad faith money.
It’d be nice for everyone to encourage and advertise what principled behavior looks like by “matching” those other contributions she donated to charity with a lot of small contributions from individual supporters.
You can donate directly on her website at http://www.ursulaforcongress.com/donate
very nice Jim… doing so would tell tell insincere donors that their “contributions” have a multiplier effect.
Don’t be an ass. All of that bad faith money went to good causes. A significant amount of the money sent by those Republicans ended up in the hands of FairVote, Move to Amend, the Election Defense Alliance and No More Stolen Elections. That’s a great move by Ursula, and a helpful boost to four organizations working on problems that matter to people on BAN.
Meanwhile, Ursula’s campaign could still use help from real supporters. She’s run a serious race against two miserable candidates, managing to do it on only $3000. I donated because she’s campaigning to raise awareness of issues I care about, including keeping big money out of politics, and she just showed that unlike most people she’ll back up campaign rhetoric with principled behavior.
You can make up hypothetical scenarios about waves of Republicans from around the country suddenly in a rush to donate thousands of dollars to Green candidates in the hopes that their money will end up in the hands of charity and then get “matched” by a lot of individual donors… or you can help one of the few good candidates out there get the word out about ending war, fighting climate change, restoring an economic bill of rights, and getting money out of politics. Your choice.
And to be clear…
Jim Ivey
Green Party
Go Mafei! Be a responsible citizen; vote lesser of two evils. The future of the Democratic Party is the future of America. Oh and why is IPR down again?
A very clever move by Rozum. By giving away money to charity , she has bought “free” media worth more than the money she gave away.
Of course she made unverified assertions against some of her donors. Challenging their motives without evidence is wrong. But no matter, she gets her advertising boost, and the donors get the advertising they were paying for.
Rozum’s methods are much more unprincipled than those she accuses her donors of using. However, her methods are known and proven.
@ Be Rational – You couldn’t be more wrong as her assertions are certainly verifiable. These contributors have in the past only contributed to conservative Republican candidates and now they are giving money to a candidate that supports the Green Party platform? I think the “reasonable man” theory upholds her assertions quite well. I may be a libertarian and therefore incompatible with Rozum’s platform, but I applaud and salute her actions. She certainly has integrity…..maybe too much to be a politician.
@7 Sorry, but you’re not being logical. While her assertions are plausible, they are made without evidence. Principled individuals demand a higher standard than mere supposition.
It could be that they prefer her to the Democrat and wish to donate. It could be that they want to encourage the spread of a variety of ideas and increase debate. Some individuals give to both sides in numerous races for a variety of reasons.
No. Rozum is an Unprincipled opportunist. She is showing her true colors. This is an act designed to gain publicity and not an act of principle. It’s a PR stunt at the expense of principled behavior.
If it were a true act of principle it would have been done WITH evidence to support the accusations made and WITHOUT a press release of her actions.
Mr. Winger’s liberal attitude toward comments unfortunately subjects his readership to much unfunny trolling.
The Greens are so spooked by being considered spoilers that they have lost their nerve, IMO.