FEC: Nader Campaign Qualifies for Funds

WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader's independent bid for the White House has qualified to receive matching government funds, the Federal Election Commission announced Friday.

Campaign officials said Nader has raised more than $850,000 to date from 7,800 separate contributions. To receive matching funds, a candidate must raise at least $5,000 in 20 states in donations of $250 or less.

The average contribution to the Nader campaign is $100, with 89 percent being $100 or less, the campaign said. The FEC matches all contributions of $250 or less up to $18.7 million.

"The Nader Campaign is not dialing for corporate dollars, unlike the corporate political duopoly we are challenging," Nader said in a statement. "We are seeking a broad base of support among the people."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040528/ap_on_el_pr/nader_matching_funds

the green party.

We cannot tolerate another four years of an ignorant Bush at the helm. Does this idiot not realize that?

Nader does not have a chance. It is stupid for him to run and try to have some influence against one or the other. Yet he is trying to take votes away from Kerry and thereby again, giving Bush the advantage.

I have lost every bit of respect for this stubborn , vindictive man.

was'nt good enough for the Greens. Nader I understand perfectly...he is on the corporate payroll...always has been. If he campaigns against Coal, it is because he is being paid by Oil...not hard to figure out.

If he accepts federal matching funds, his intention can no longer be disputed here at DU...he is REALLY running. He really means to hurt us. He is really not on our side.

Most of those small campaign contributions no doubt came from his exploratory website...credit card contributions from freepers.

I hope this ends the debate on Ralph's intentions, and what kind of person he is.

Ralph is in it for Ralph.

because your characterization of Nader is so innacurate that you'll roll people's eyes if you state it in public.

Also, as to Gore being a bona fide envirnmentalist- maybe he is. He certainly wrote a decent book. However, the Clinton Administration's actions fell somewhat short of bona fide, to say the least and there are other areas where Gore was less than progressive- at least in the 2000 version.

I don't know what Nader's intentions are- I guess we'll have to wait and see how he decides to use his new matching funds-

Republicans controlled both Houses in Clinton/Gore's 2nd term. They were too busy running their Inquisition to support a liberal/progressive domestic agenda. Perhaps if Gore and Clinton had majorities in both Houses, as Bush has enjoyed, we'd have made a whole hell of a lot more progress on issues that matter to us.

when I worked for Osprirg AND the 90's when Public Citizen and Calpirg were trying desperately to get someone, ANYONE to listen to reason with respect to the California energy deregulation plan. It passed California's Democratically controlled legislature nearly unanimously... with very little public debate (but LOTS of lobbiest money).

As far as losing Congress and thereby the agenda- well, I don't see how one can blame anyone but the Democratic leadership (e.g. the DLC) for that- once again, some of us on the left saw that one coming too.

BTW: I like your nomme de guerre- I feel like that all to often myself lately.... ;)

I agree that the Democrats have made some bad tactical/strategic mistakes over the years. Hell, they have caused some of their own problems by not tending to the core values that differentiate us from the "traditional" Republicans (not sure that Republicans stand for much of anything today except personal greed).

The good news, I think, is that the majoriy of Democrats are waking up to what we have lost. If we can thank Bush for anything, it's the revitalization and activism of the Left in re-engaging in the political debate. We were way too complacent in the 90s and let the Right out-organize us. I really believe we've turned the corner and the pendulum is starting to swing back to progressive values. If we keep the Big Mo going, retaking the House and Senate is quite possible. Then we have to address and investigate, seriously, the real problems that have plagued our country for the past 40 years or so. It won't be pretty, but it's got to be done.

do it. My guess is that a lot of disenchanted Democrats will be coming back into the fold this year- whether they're independents or Greens. The trick will be to sustain the momentum and turn it into something positive for a change. It seems to me that we've been on defensive- trying to keep what we gained during the 60's and 70's- ever since Reagan took office. The time is long since past to turn that around and the opportunity has never been better, given the disgraceful cast of characters on the other side of the aisle-

They've finally worn out their welcome with most of the population, I think.

strange history. Nader has NEVER been on the corporate payrolls. Corp. America tried to kill his career, several times. Let's just say that after hearing more about Kerry and his DLC foreign policy team (announced yesterday) that I hope Nader stays in the race to bring JK back a little more to the left. Let's also remember that earlier this week Ralph called for the impeachment of W --something he'll continue to do, something others are afraid to do. I'll vote for Kerry this year (after supporting Ralph past) but want JK to be less like the Republican he's sounding like.

http://www.votenader.com/why_ralph/index.php?cid=3

The Greens are not planning on deciding whether or under which conditions they will run a Presidential candidate until their June Convention in Milwaukee.

Because of the deadlines under the unfair ballot access laws, Ralph could not wait until then to see whether the Greens would field a candidate this year and under what restrictions.

He still plans to work with local and state Green parties and supports their main values, but he wanted the ability to start before June and be able to run an innovative campaign and bring out more Independents and nonvoters who don’t want to identify with any party.

Ralph is and always has been registered as an Independent.

He has, however, received the endorsement of the Reform Party (yes, the Perot-Buchanan Reform Party!):

http://prcom.reformparty.org/documents/press-18.html

(May 11, 2004) The Reform Party of the United States of America overwhelmingly voted to endorse Ralph Nader for President of the United States.

In 1992, founder and presidential candidate Ross Perot received over 19 million votes. Four years later, Ross Perot received over 8 million votes. Today, the Reform Party USA has over 1 million active supporters. For example, in November, 2003, in Mississippi, Reform Party candidate Billy Blackburn pulled over 182,000 votes.

This year, with your help, Ralph Nader can win the office of the Presidency, since over 80 out of every 100 registered voters did not vote for Democratic or Republican candidates in the 2004 Primaries.

So, while he may be putting the fate of the entire Earth at risk by drawing votes from Kerry and thus helping Bush*, at least he won't be damaging the Greens :-)

that is the fact.

The Green party has lost it's relevance this time around, if it had any at all, and it now enjoys the rather dubious reputation of being a party that works to support Bush and works against Democrats.

Whether true or not, it has destroyed itself because of Nader in the last election and redeeming itself will be difficult this time around. Because

I have the feeling that people are definately, single mindedly purposeful in their resolve to get rid of Bush this time around that anyone who was a Green last time around, now recognizes the futility of supporting a third party as it works only to support the party that is the opposition to the Democratic party and that would be the fascist Bush and his regime this time around.

It was also evident the last time around to those who did their homework.

No matter what you may think of the Democrats, it should be so clearly obvious that the Republicans are absolutely evil in their attempts to change this country into a fascist, theocratic and tyrannically ruled country. It should also be clear and obvious that supporting a third party candidate will only make it that more difficult to remove him--by the votes of the people.

It is perfectly clear after three and a half years of a stupid man called Bush and his policies have almost destroyed this country. We cannot tolerate a third party candidate such as the disrupter Nader.

How much of his fundraising is prop support from Republicans?
Ralph is running as the Left Wing of the Republic Party....that's the real political duopoly in the race.

It seems that those who are incapable of answering, challenging or debating the view of Ralph Nader usually have to engage in the kind of crude and slanderous accusations.

They rarely provide any factual evidence and hard facts to back up their sometimes outrageous claims. The above posts are just a few examples of what I am writing about.

True progressives and liberals don't resort to cruel character assasination when they have confidence in their own ideas and use their knowledge to contest the views of those they disagree with, including Ralph Nader.

Those who are guilty of such behavior can only aide our real enemies. Bush is the real right-wing enemy. Not Nader. Not Kucinich. Not any liberal or progessive who opposes some or many of policies of the DLC or John Kerry.

Enough is enough!

You support Nader, you support Bush.

Clear enough for you "Solidarity"? This is a Democratic Posting Board...not a Ralph/Bush Republican support site.

Please. That was a pretty lame response. If name calling, personal insults and spreading unproven claims is your game take it to an insult board. This is a democratic with a big D discussion board! Civil discussion I hope! So please don't try that old duck and dodge routine. Do you have any evidence to back up your claims about Nader or do you expect everyone to simply take your word.

Just because you say Nader is a front man for big oil doesn't make it so. You can make any claims you wish here but it would be nice if you'd back them up with some facts.
Do you really want me and others to just take your charges at face value without one iota of proof?

I'll back up my statements with hard facts if asked. If you can do the same that would certainly be appreciated.

And no .... I'm not involved in Nader's campaign but if that's a new kind of red-baiting go ahead and grill me ..... "have you now or have you ever supported Ralph Nader".

Ralph's our Lecturer-in-Chief; he'll be pissed your muscling in on his "holier than thou" franchise.

Let's try this again. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Is that any clearer?

All that hard work paid off and Ralphie continues to help their cause

Crachet2004 wrote:

"Nader I understand perfectly...he is on the corporate payroll...always has been. If he campaigns against Coal, it is because he is being paid by Oil...not hard to figure out.

I hope this ends the debate on Ralph's intentions, and what kind of person he is."

No, you have not ended discussion on this matter. That is what you hoped your false and unproven charges against Nader would do. That was the whole person behind your claims! To stop discussion. To stop anyone from daring to raise questions about Nader's campaign. To perhaps silence those Greens who may consider running their own candidate for President or perhaps endorse Nader. Your goal seems to me not to enlighten but to frighten progessives who may not totally buy your political views.

But, your crude slander won't work. Most thinking DU's won't fall for it. If your going to make such serious charges against Nader, Kucinich or anyone else how about backing them up with some hard facts? Or do you think all of us on DU should simply take your word for it?

is invested in Cisco. *

H-1B visas...monopoly...made in China...union-busting Cisco.

Take a look at who John T. Chambers, Cisco CEO gives his political money to:

CHAMBERS, JOHN T MR
LOS ALTOS HILLS,CA 94022

CISCO SYSTEMS/C.E.O

12/30/2003

$2,000

Bush, George W

$25,000

Republican National Senatorial Committee

Nader invests over $1 million in this right-wing Republican company and expects the working class to take him seriously.

*2000 FEC filing

this board needs them. The Nader-baiting is just too much. He's done more for this nation that W or Kerry/Gore combined. He's not stupid either and will bow out this time if it looks like W has a chance to win. In the mean time Nader will bring forth impt. issues. Keep it up Solidarity. Email me -- and anyone else who wants to have an off-the board discussion about Nader, progressive politics, Kerry and W -- if you wish. I'm not afraid to post my address and back up my opinions: sttaylor77@aol.com

and obviously I cannot prove it until he DOES...which is the whole point-how did Saint Ralph become a millionaire? Ralph won't tell...and until he does, there IS no proof.

But the FACT is, he IS a millionaire...it is up to HIM to show where the money came from. Only Ralphy can release these documents, and I certainly would'nt hold my breath, if I were you.

The intensity of loyalty of the duped among Nader supporters amuses me. There is no reasoning with some people. If Nader DID release his returns, and we were to find out he has been on corporate payrolls all these years, still, he would have his supporters.

There is a language of talk, and a language of action and results. It does'nt matter what you say, if you have a continuing history of observable results which have nothing to do with the words that come from your mouth. This is the case with Ralph...WE ALL like what he is saying, but his only purpose is to attract votes thereby, and cost us another election LIKE HE DID LAST TIME.

It is for Nader to answer these charges of corporate complicity, not me; and if he were innocent, why would'nt he release his tax returns?

No. Continuing support of this traitor only proves to me, that we on the Left have our equivalent of Fundys, Freepers, and Kool-Aid Drinkers...people who emotionally call for FACTS, when they know there are none to be had, because Ralph does'nt DARE release any..people for whom it is easier to simply BELIEVE than to THINK!

The Bible says it best"...by their fruits, ye shall know them..." That could be a direct reference to Nader, as far as I am concerned. For what it is worth, I have advocated offering Nader a cabinet position before the election...he will either accept, and we get his votes, or be discredited with the vast majority of his supporters, for being nothing more than the spoiler he is-and we will get most of their votes.

Either way, Bush loses, and that is what I really care about.

Probably a lot less than John Kerry is receiving from Republicans.

But, maybe someone can check out the donors list to see who is getting what from who.

Let's take a hard look at the big corporate donations received by Kerry, Bush and Nader.

Republican donors for Kerry understand that Bush has screwed this country and desperately want new leadership tht Kerry will bring.

Republicans donating to Nader are just cynical CREEPs who will do anything to keep the unelected fraud in business.

Luckily, there are more of the former than the latter.

what our candidate has to say ... (or have friends on the scotus). That is never going to happen for nader.

please NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Does this man want to destroy what's left of our democracy??????
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I think Bush has moved a long way in that direction with the Patriot Act. I wished John Kerry had been opposed to it. And I wish he would call for its repeal .... all of it!

http://www.soc.qc.edu/Staff/levine/Ralph-Nader-As-Suicide-Bomber.html

This is an important article about Nader that suggests his real motive in 2000 was to punish the Democrats for not adhering to his agenda over the years. He was especially angry at Clinton and passionately hated Gore, according to this. It is a long article, but here are two snippets that give a feel for what is said:

In Tarek's unforgettable phrase, Ralph Nader wanted to hurt, wound and punish the Democrats. This was much more than indifference. Nader was not simply opposed to helping the Democrats, he actually wanted Gore to lose. He didn't particularly want to elect Bush, but his desire to punish the Democrats out-weighed that. It also seemed to me that the desire to hurt Gore was not Tarek's personal mission, it was his beloved uncle's crusade.

Further, I had learned that the campaign's mission of punishment trumped getting political influence for Nader and for the causes he had long fought for. It trumped the potentially brutal effect of a Bush presidency on many Americans and other innocent people around the world. Punishment wasn't Nader's only campaign goal, just the most important one. But his supporters were not being told this. The campaign was not putting on their banners the motto: "Vote For Ralph Nader Because He Wants To Punish, Hurt And Wound The Democrats."

snip

Then, in October 2002, the reporter Jonathan Chait published an article titled "The Man Who Gave Us Bush" in the magazine The American Prospect. It was technically a review of two new books, Justin Martin's biography (Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon) and Nader's own book about the campaign, Crashing the Party. Chait, however, had more in mind than book reviewing. He used the space to make a thoroughly-argued case that Nader intended to defeat Gore and that he had lied throughout the campaign to disguise this. A few others had said this in print before, but only briefly. Armed with new information from the two books, Chait launched a full-scale attack on Nader's career and credibility. Although Chait was, I think, overly dismissive of Nader's many earlier achievements, his arguments about what Nader intended and did in the campaign are sound.

Nader ran for president based on his reputation for honesty and truthfulness, for being a reformer who tells it like it is. But in order to justify what he was doing, throughout his campaign, and then in his book, Nader misled and misinformed his often young followers in a multitude of ways. Chait described well the techniques Nader used to fend off questions that he could help Bush.