Which Minor Party and Independent Presidential Candidates Have Had Secret Service Protection in the Past?

Posted on by July 16, 2024

The Secret Service began protecting some presidential candidates in 1968. The first minor party or independent presidential candidates who ever received such protection were John G. Schmitz, 1972 nominee of the American/American Independent Parties, and Dr. Benjamin Spock, 1972 nominee of the Peoples Party. Eugene McCarthy received such protection in 1976. John Anderson received it in 1980.

Ross Perot did not want such protection in 1992 nor in 1996. He had his own security and did not want the federal government to constantly know where he was.

Thanks to Eric Garris, Darcy Richardson, Theresa Amato, and Clay Mulford for help with this post.

Comments

Which Minor Party and Independent Presidential Candidates Have Had Secret Service Protection in the Past? — 22 Comments

  1. I think if I was RFK Jr. at this point I would start trying to make Trump lose.

  2. OP: looks like Perot was the smartest of the bunch

    Term: Why and how?

  3. Lyndon LaRouche used an interesting combination of private security, Virginia law enforcement and federal agents. What was his status in regard to secret service protection?

  4. What federal agents could he use besides secret service? Or were they working for him off the clock from their government jobs in a separate capacity?

  5. Lyndon LaRouche didn’t receive secret service protection. And in his presidential campaigns, he mostly avoided speaking in public except to members of his own organization.

  6. @Richard Winger
    Thank you.

    @Q
    According to wikipedia, LaRouche exchanged intelligence for protection through contacts at the CIA, NSA, DEA, DIA and NSC, like Bobby Ray Inman (NSA, CIA), John McMahon (CIA), Richard Morris (NSA), Norman Baily (NSC), William Clark Jr (deputy secretary of state), etc. And his private security was allegedly trained by Mitchell WerBell III (OSS, CIA).
    That’s kind of ironic, because he also blamed his criminal indictment on the NSC and accused the CIA of trying to assassinate him.
    The FBI certainly seems to have been involved in trying to convince the CPUSA to assassinate LaRouche, and went to great lengths to spy on him and try to get his organization banned. On the other hand, LaRouche was quite happy to work with Roy Frankenhouser, whom he believed to be an FBI agent, and who was the one who introduced LaRouche to WerBell.

  7. Does anybody know about George Wallace in his 1968 3rd party run if he did or even in the 1972 primary ?

  9. Bobby G, yes, both in 1968 and 1972. However, 1972 was in D primaries. One of the people wounded alongside Wallace in 1972 was Secret Service agent Nick Zarvos.

  13. Indeed. In 1976 he ran under his own US Labor Party. And in 2016 he was a write-in thanks to the LaRouchePAC, but I’m not sure that last one counts as him running, because he himself seems to have had little or nothing to do with it. Other than that he appears to always have (attempted to) run as a Democrat. Though the Democrats sure have tried to make that as hard as possible to verify.

  14. Lyndon LaRouche ran as an independent in November in 1984, 1988, and 1992.

  19. The wikipedophiles list numerous reasons why Perot shouldn’t have been president:
    -“Perot supported stricter gun control such as an assault weapons ban and supported increased research in AIDS.”
    -“Perot was hesitant on covering the issue of gay rights during his 1992 campaign, but openly supported gay rights in 1996.”
    -“From 1992, Perot was a pro-choice activist, and a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood. He stated that poorer women in particular should have access to abortions via federal funding.”
    -“Perot believed taxes should be increased on the wealthy”
    -“Perot also believed the capital gains tax should be increased”
    -“For the 1992 election, Perot unveiled an ambitious budget program that would balance the budget through redistributive policies.”
    -“The most prominent element of the plan was Perot’s proposal to raise the income tax bracket of 4% wealthiest households from 31 to 33 percent, with a possibility of raising it further to 35 percent in the future.”
    -“Other points included increasing the taxable portion of Social Security benefits from 50 to 85 percent for recipients with income of $25,000 or more, as well as implementing a tax on hitherto tax-free employer-paid health insurance”
    -“The plan also called for doubling cigarette tax and increasing gasoline tax by 50 cents a gallon; Perot explained that higher gasoline tax would help conserve energy and reduce pollution”

  20. Does “having anything approaching a realistic chance to win” or “having anything approaching a realistic chance of having most voters know who the candidate is, his track record of leadership and accomplishment, and what he supposedly stands for” enter into your calculations of who to support in any way at all ever?

  21. Are you asking me, or…?

    Pragmatism isn’t necessarily bad, but it can never be used to excuse evil. That’s how you end up with blind Trump sycophants who can’t think for themselves and who accuse those of us who do of “overfixating on details”, while this is literally happening behind them:
    https://notthebee.com/article/eric-trump-likens-the-pro-life-fight-to-worrying-about-a-spot-on-the-wall-in-the-basement-while-the-roof-is-leaking
    https://notthebee.com/article/rnc-platforms-porn-star-founder-of-slut-walk-and-a-prayer-to-a-pagan-god-at-the-convention

    All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to look on yet do nothing. The unacceptable should never be accepted, because if you do not fight evil, then you are evil.

  22. I can think for myself, and I think Trump is much better than the Democrats, and also better than other Republican presidents in our lifetimes ( we might quibble about the few people alive who were alive during the Coolidge presidency).

    Perot was much better than Bush/Dole or Clinton. Howard Phillips was much better on issues than any of them, but he was obscure – the number of voters who knew he was running for president and why was and is miniscule. Voting for Phillips has very little impact on anything. Perot had a recognisable impact in bringing certain issues such as the looming debt crisis into focus. Unfortunately, that focus was temporary, but for a few years the federal government actually managed to balance budgets, and I think Perot bringing attention to that issue had a lot to do with it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.