| Page 6051

Delaware Independent Party Faces Internal Dissention

Posted on June 26, 2008 by Richard WingerJune 26, 2008

The Independent Party of Delaware has been ballot-qualified since 2000. Although Delaware allows two parties to jointly nominate the same candidate, the Independent Party of Delaware has never nominated a Democrat or a Republican for a statewide office. However, on June 19, the party held a nominating convention and nominated Republican Mike Protack for Governor. Protack is also expected to run in the Republican primary for Governor, to be held on September 9. Filing for the major party primaries is in July.

Many party activists disagree with the decision to nominate Protack, including Floyd McDowell, the party’s founder. The unhappy members of the party believe that the June 19 convention was not called in accordance with Party Bylaws, and they have complained to the State Election Commission. The Election Commission says the party has not even filed its Bylaws with the state, which is a legal problem for the party. See this article for more details.

Regardless of the validity of the June 19 convention, all factions in the party anticipate an additional state convention will be called, in August. The August convention would decide whether the party will nominate any candidates for presidential elector, and if so, whom they are pledged to. In 2004 the Independent Party nominated Ralph Nader for president.

Part of McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law Struck Down

Posted on June 26, 2008 by Richard WingerJune 26, 2008

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law unconstitutional. Davis v Federal Election Commission, 07-320. The vote was 5-4. Here is the opinion.

This case concerned the “Millionaire’s Amendment”, which relaxes contribution limits for any congressional candidate who has a wealthy opponent. Specifically, if any congressional candidate spends at least $350,000 of his or her own funds on the campaign, then the opponents of that candidate are released from the $2,300 limit on contributions to their campaign. The majority opinion, by Justice Samuel Alito, says that the Constitution does not permit the government to set unequal contribution limits. The opinion’s key sentence, on page 16 of the majority opinion, says, “It is a dangerous business for Congress to use the election laws to influence the voters’ choices.” Also, on page 18, “The unprecedented step of imposing different contribution and coordinated party expenditure limits on candidates vying for the same seat is antithetical to the First Amendment.”

This language should make it easier to win lawsuits against state public funding laws which set unequal rewards for some candidates, relative to other candidates. Public funding laws in Maine, Arizona, and New Mexico, treat all candidates exactly the same. The public funding that formerly existed in Massachusetts also treated all candidates equally. But public funding laws in Connecticut and New Jersey, and a pending bill in California, do not treat all candidates the same; qualifications to get public funding are easier for Republicans and Democrats than for other candidates.

Justice Stevens dissented, and said that the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision Buckley v Valeo was mistaken when it struck down limits on campaign expenditures. He expressed the view that too much campaign advertising “obscures the issues.” He also said that “the Constitution does not require Congress to treat all declared candidates the same.” This contradicts his opinion in Cook v Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001). In that opinion, he said states may not “favor or disfavor a class of candidates.” That decision struck down a Missouri state law that provided that candidates for Congress should have labels on the ballot that said what their position is, on amending the U.S. Constitution to provide for term limits for Congress.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer voted that the Millionaires’ Amendment is constitutional, but they didn’t join the portion of Justice Stevens’ dissent that said Buckley v Valeo should be overturned.

More Rhode Island Candidate Filings

Posted on June 26, 2008 by Richard WingerJune 26, 2008

The list of independent presidential candidates who filed slates of presidential elector candidates in Rhode Island is: Ralph Nader, Denise McSheffrey, and Yonyuth Hongsakaphadana. These candidates now need at least 1,000 valid signatures, due September 5.

The list of unqualified parties that filed slates of presidential elector candidates in Rhode Island is (as reported yesterday): Constitution, Green, Libertarian, Socialism, Socialist, and Socialist Workers. They also each need 1,000 signatures by September 5. Any adult may circulate petitions in Rhode Island.

If all 9 petitioning candidates and groups succeed, there will be eleven presidential candidates on the Rhode Island November ballot, the most that state has ever had. The previous largest ballot Rhode Island ever had was in 2000, when 10 presidential candidates were listed.

For U.S. Senate, there are no minor party or independent candidates. For US House district 1, one independent filed; he needs 500 signatures by mid-July. For US House district 2, one Green filed; he also needs 500 signatures next month.

CNN Article on Kentucky Libertarian Nominee for U.S. Senate

Posted on June 25, 2008 by Richard WingerJune 25, 2008

CNN has this story about Sonny Landham, Libertarian Party nominee for U.S. Senate in Kentucky this year. He has been an actor, and was in Predator. As the article notes, the cast of Predator (released in 1987) also included two actors who were destined to become Governors, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura.

Lengthy Washington Post Article on Ralph Nader

Posted on June 25, 2008 by Richard WingerJune 25, 2008

The Washington Post has this lengthy article about Ralph Nader in its June 25 issue. Unfortunately, the article is mostly a re-hash of all the same points that have been written about Nader for years. There is no mention that the Post itself presented evidence in its October 22, 2004 issue, page one, that Nader was not injuring the Democratic presidential campaign in 2004. There is no mention that he is doing better with ballot access in 2008 than he was doing at this point in 2004. There is no mention that he seems likely to be the only non-major party presidential candidate who will receive primary season matching funds (unless Cynthia McKinney also qualifies). There is no mention of Nader’s very strong FEC complaint against the Democratic National Committee. That complaint charges that the Committee should have reported its extensive expenditures to keep him off the ballot in 2004 but did not do so.