Dark-Horse Presidential Candidates Berate Role of Money in Politics
While President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, heartily disagree about the role of money in politics, campaign finance reform was never breached in any of the three presidential debates this month.
But the issue was front and center during a debate Tuesday in Chicago sponsored by the nonprofit Free and Equal Elections Foundation that featured four dark-horse presidential candidates.
During the debate, which was moderated by former CNN host Larry King, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein advocated for a constitutional amendment to “clarify that money is not speech and corporations are not people.”
Rocky Anderson, the former Democratic mayor of Salt Lake City Mayor now running for president under the banner of the Justice Party, assailed the “corrupting influence” of money and alleged that both Obama and Romney have been “bought and paid for.”
Former Virginia Congressman Virgil Goode, the nominee of the conservative Constitution Party, called for the elimination of all political action committees, including super PACs, saying the nation should sever ties with the groups just as we “threw off” King George during the American Revolution.
Even Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, the former two-term GOP governor of New Mexico, suggested that politicians be required to wear NASCAR-like jackets with the logos of their sponsors.
Stein, Anderson, Goode and Johnson were barred from participating in the three presidential debates between Obama and Romney, but their names will appear on the ballot across the country.
The Libertarian Party is qualified for the ballot in nearly all 50 states, and both the Green Party and Constitution Party will appear on the ballot in dozens of states. The Justice Party will appear on the ballot in 16 states, including the swing states of Colorado and Florida.
During the 90-minute debate, both Stein and Anderson promoted the idea of a WPA-style program for green jobs, while Johnson and Goode endorsed curbing the size of government.
The four candidates also discussed — and frequently disagreed on — the legalization of marijuana, the drug war, immigration policy, the affordability of higher education, climate change, term limits, poverty and taxes.
Third-party presidential candidates typically don’t receive a significant portion of the vote — a point countered by Johnson with one of the most memorable lines of the night.
"Wasting your vote is voting for somebody you don't believe in," Johnson declared. "Waste your vote on me."
Both Johnson and Stein have qualified to receive public funding for their presidential campaigns.
Records show that Johnson has raised more than $2.1 million for his presidential quest through the end of September, including about $333,750 in public financing, while Stein has raised about $644,000, including $100,000 in public funds.
Through the end of September, Goode raised about $193,000, including $94,000 transferred from his old congressional campaign committee, while Anderson raised about $46,000 through the end of June. A campaign finance report detailing his third-quarter fundraising has not yet been posted to the Federal Election Commission website.
Neither Obama nor Romney is utilizing the nation’s public financing program — with its associated spending caps — making this the first election in which neither major-party candidate has participated since the program was implemented in the wake of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. Obama also rejected the public financing program in 2008, when he raised a record $750 million.
This year, both Obama and Romney are raising hundreds of millions of dollars in private contributions, though individuals are prohibited from donating more than $5,000 to either man’s campaign.
For his part, Obama, who hammered those trying to “buy this election” in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last month, has said that the country should “seriously consider mobilizing a constitutional amendment process to overturn Citizens United,” the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 that lifted restrictions on corporate and union electioneering.
Romney, meanwhile, has called for campaign contribution limits to be lifted and opposes a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.
The Republican Party platform additionally calls for the repeal of the campaign finance reform law authored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and opposes the DISCLOSE Act, Democratic-sponsored legislation that seeks to implement new disclosure requirements for groups that run political ads.
CONNECT













4 comments on "Dark-Horse Presidential Candidates Berate Role of Money in Politics"
October 28, 2012 5:25pm
Most third party voter are like the teaparty voters but without the corporate backing. Look at how the teaparty has taken over the Republician party and moved it to the right until it can't work with the political center of the country. A democracy can't work for all the citizens if only a few have a say.
October 26, 2012 10:42am
I think we can cut President Obama a lot of slack on a lot of issues --- the banks, the campaign financing, the environment (climate change). After all, he and we live in a very imperfect world.
But the bombing of Libya killing thousands, the drones in Pakistan and Yemen bombing funerals and weddings, the endless wars costing trillions and sinking the economy, are beyond the pale and erase any moral difference between the major party candidates.
This is absolutely not a question of an almost perfect President.
It is a question of tweedle-dee versus tweedle-dum.
Fooled us once, shame on him. Fooled us twice, shame on us.
October 26, 2012 7:18pm
DANH:
You have some valid criticisms, but do you think Romney will be safer than Obama? He's liable to start a never-ending war with Iran, which will spark more fanatical terrorist strikes against the U.S.
I never said Obama was perfect, or even near-perfect, but consider the alternative. If you think Romney is any better, or that he won't start another Republican war for no reason, you have more faith in him than I do.
But I heard today that 2 nationwide polls show Romney with a lead over the President. And you know what I think is the most disgraceful thing about a Romney/Ryan win? Just this: it will demonstrate, unconvincingly, that the rich and the big corporations can manipulate the American electorate just by throwing more money into negative TV ads.
I find that prospect saddening. If I was younger, I would seriously consider emigrating to Canada, Australia or New Zealand, for to my mind, a Romney win would be a death-knell for the very ideals of American democracy. And you and I both know that the corporate support of Romney far exceeds that of Obama's.
Do you really imagine that Obama wanted to have funerals and weddings bombed? That would put him on a par with Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot, and I don't think he deserves to be put with that crowd.
And who started the "endless wars" you refer to? Was it the President? You know it was the neocons during the Jr. Bush disastrous presidency. Are you going to blame Obama for them? Didn't he stop the Iraq War, which never should have been launched? Isn't he winding down the Afghanistan War, after eliminating the mind behind 9/11 and some of his top lieutenants. How about giving credit where it's due?
Maybe you think it would be nice to have a saintly pacifist in the White House, but I disagree about that, and I think you would, too, if Islamists launched attacks against our homeland again.
The Republicans say Obama is too soft, not strong enough. Greens imply he's a bloodthirsty warmonger. I think the truth lies somewhere in between, but I know that Greens see the world and its complex issues in stark black and white terms, no gray areas allowed.
Well, as I said before, if you live in a toss-up state and vote for Jill Stein just to make a pious statement, then I'm going to blame you if Romney is our next president. You shouldn't go through life with your nose in the air and acting morally superior because some of us are trying to deal with the world as it is, and trying to make it better, when the Greens seem to be more interested in making a righteous pose.
October 26, 2012 9:35am
It's unfortunate that viable third-party candidates aren't allowed to take part in the debates. At least they can contribute different perspectives for discussion, encouraging voters to consider alternate views.
I remember Gary Johnson as Governor of New Mexico. He seemed a traditional Republican in most respects except for his open-minded approach to our so-called War on Drugs. I saluted him for that, but it seemed to be the only way in which he differed from other Republican politicians.
Jill Stein, well, what can I say? I agree with some of her views, and I do think it's worthwhile for voters in states where the votes for president are certain to be lopsided, in favor of Obama or Romney, to make a dissenting statement by voting for Jill Stein.
But I strongly disagree about voters in "toss-up" states voting for Ms. Stein, for the chances are good that such votes could swing the election for Romney/Ryan, and I DO think there's a significant difference between Obama and Romney. Most of Wall Street and Big Oil and Big Coal appear to be supporting Romney with their excessive profits, and I think this should give some pause to anyone thinking of supporting this silver-spooned scion of a prominent family.
Let's face it, campaigns are usually won by The Message, whatever that might be, and delivering The Message to voters, repeatedly and throughout the country, takes a lot of money today. So I think it's unrealistic for political virgins to insist that Obama must be completely dissociated from any sizable source of money. It must be remembered that Obama is getting far more small contributions than Romney, from voters across the land, whereas the Big Money from corporate America is solidly behind Mitt, and we all know these things. Unfortunately, the Greens seem to say, "if neither of the major candidates is perfect, then I'll vote for ....." They refuse to vote for a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil from winning, and because of their rigid opposition to compromise, we just may wind up with a Romney presidency, and I am truly dreadful of that, and if it turns out that third-party votes cost Obama the election, I'm going to constantly remind those parties of their childish and spiteful contribution to Mitt's move to the White House.
Actions have consequences. This is not the time to make statements, as if we had all the time in the world to fight climate change, corruption of politics, the threat to species, and the possibility of another unnecessary Republican war, as well as the threat to Social Security and Medicare.
Most voters decry the power of money in politics, too, but just voting for someone you believe in is not going to change a thing in the real world, and in our sober moments, we all know this.