portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

government | imperialism & war | political theory selection 2004

Nader Highlights Anti-Democratic Dirty Tricks' Ties to KERRY and McAuliffe

Democrats are guilty of anti democratic actions
Nader Highlights Anti-Democratic Dirty Tricks' Ties to Kerry and McAuliffe

Corporate Democrats Working With Corporate Republicans to Stop Anti-Corporate Power Nader-Camejo

Nader: žThese Anti-Democratic Actions Go to the Top of the Party and Their Presidential CandidateÓ

Washington, DC: The independent campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo showed that Senator John Kerry and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe are directly responsible for the anti-democratic dirty tricks attempting to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot.

The Nader/Camejo campaign has repeatedly written Kerry and McAuliffe describing the dirty tricks and urging both to stop before the campaign was involved in a mini-Watergate scandal. Over two months ago Mr. McAuliffe and his spokesmen admitted encouraging efforts to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot in žclose states.Ó But now we know the DNC and the Kerry campaign that controls it are directly involved in this lawyer layered rancid drive.

At a press conference in Washington, DC, the campaign played a tape of sworn testimony by the head of the Democratic Party in Maine, Dorothy Malanson, in which she admits that the Democratic National Committee is paying for her time, the lawyers, and other expenses related to the challenge to keep Nader off the ballotůand that this is a national campaign.

The campaign also provided pay records of Judy E. Reardon showing more than $64,000 in payments to her from March 15th, 2003 to July 30th, 2004 (the last date on which reports are available) from the Kerry campaign. In 2003 Reardon was hired as the deputy national director for the Kerry campaign in Northern New England and has been described as a senior advisor to the campaign. The Nader/Camejo campaign provided reporters with an email between Judy Reardon and attorney Marty Van Oot concerning the lawsuit in New Hampshire. This links the Kerry campaign with the so-called žindependentÓ Ballot Project (officially known as Focus on Ballot Qualification, Inc.) which is litigating the New Hampshire case.

Members of the so-called independent 527, United Progressives for Victory and the Ballot Project, met with Democrats at the Democratic Convention in Boston. A press report in the Hartford Courant indicated they met to strategize about how to keep Nader-Camejo off the ballot (Janice Darcy, žAnti-Nader Forces Coordinate Strategy,Ó July 27th, 2004). The Seattle Times recently reported on the arguments that polling showed were most effective against Nader and on how the žindependentÓ groups were raising money at the Democratic Convention (David Postman, žNader Foes Seek Funding from Democratic Donors, July 28th, 2004). The Santa Fe New Mexican has reported how the 527's met with the New Mexico delegation to discuss how to keep Nader off the ballot in New Mexico (Steve Terrell, žFears of Nader Keep Dems on Offensive,Ó July 29th, 2004).

This coordination appears to be illegal and should be investigated by the Federal Elections Commission and the media.

The Nader/Camejo campaign also demonstrated how the anti-Nader effort involves not only Democratic donations, but also donations from Republicans as well as law firms that donate primarily to the Republican Party and candidates. For example:

In Ohio, the lawfirm of Kirkland and Ellis, whose most famous partner was Republican Ken Starr of Clinton impeachment fame, represents major corporate interests. Among them are: Dow Corning (breast implant litigation), Brown and Williamson Tobacco (smoking cases brought by state attorney generals), and General Motors (product defect cases against victims of serious injuries). (See the Kirkland & Ellis LLP web site) In Ohio Kirkland is supplying at least two full-time lawyers working to keep Nader/Camejo off the ballot. These lawyers have subpoened virtually every person who collected signatures for Nader/Camejo. In the presidential campaign the firm's PAC has given to George W. Bush's re-electionů$5,000. They did not play both sides of the fence, giving $0 to John Kerry. These abusive subpoenas were quashed by the Ohio Attorney General on behalf of the Secretary of State.

In Pennsylvania, Reed Smith law firm devoted hundreds of high-priced attorney-hours to keep Nader off the ballot in Pennsylvania. Reed Smith žis counsel to 29 of the top 30 United States banks; 26 of the Fortune e-50 companies; 9 of the top 10 pharmaceutical companies; and 50 of the world's leading drug and device manufacturers (www.reedsmith.com).Ó In legal backgrounders and publications available on its web site, Reed Smith defends the advertising business against attempts to restrict product placement and against broader limits on commercialization of tawdry entertainment directed at young children. It explicitly identifies Ralph Nader as a proponent of these standards. The Reed Smith PAC contributes primarily to Republican campaign efforts.

Toby Moffett, a corporate Democrat who works at the primarily Republican Livingston Group, heads United Progressives for Victory and the Ballot Project. Moffett is a former Vice President of Monsanto, and his lobbying firm represents military contractors, telecom giants, the Cayman Islands, De La Rue (who printed IraqŪs currency for the US puppet government), oil companies, asbestos companies, and industry trade associations. The lead partner in the law firm, Robert Livingston, was scheduled to replace Newt Gingrich as the Republican Speaker of the Houseůuntil a scandal ended his political career.

The National Lobbying Group, the lobbying arm of Oldaker, Biden and Belair (whose principle William Oldaker, a long-term Democratic operative), set up Focus on Ballot Qualifcations, Inc. His firm represents major corporate interests, including Delta Air Lines, which is seeking corporate welfare to shore up its losses, and Equifax a major repository of credit information.

According to reports filed with the Internal Revenue Service, another anti-Nader group, the National Progress Fund, received one of its largest donations ($25,000) from Robert Savoie, president of the Louisiana-based firm Science and Engineering Associates. A month before his donation to the National Progress Fund, Savoie handed over $25,000 to the Republican National Committee.

While the Democrats are primarily behind the challenge to Nader/Camejo, corporate Republican operatives are working on the effort as well. This combination of corporate Democrats with corporate Republicans against Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo, the anti-corporate crime and power candidates, highlights how the corporate political duopoly is working to strengthen its choke-hold on the political system and force voters to vote for one of their candidates or not vote at all.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the iceberg, under the surface, is for the media to investigate and uncover, should it think that these types of harassment and dirty tricks against more voices and choices for the American people are newsworthy.

That Makes Two Of Them 22.Sep.2004 15:57

Mistletoe Angel

No one in their right mind can argue that this is wrong, and certainly doesn't live up to the good name of democracy. In any case, this is an upsetting time no matter who you're representing.

Of course, Nader is no exception to the "anti-democratic" regime. He and Camejo, themselves, are guilty of these same fradulent, partisan, unilateral politics.

Of course how can I expect to believe everything you say unless you reveal your name (or the name of the writer) and the source of this information? Or, because you listed your name as "Nader campaign" you're obviously very deeply involved with the Nader campaign and will believe all that comes across.

With that said, I'd like to present examples of the Nader campaign's unilateral involvement with Republicans. The source is Federal Elections Commission. I first read about this from the San Francisco Gate, and this was first published July 9th of this year:


Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader -- still not on the ballot in a single state -- has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.

Nearly one in 10 of Nader's major donors -- those writing checks of $1, 000 or more -- have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have "bundled" contributions -- gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

The donations from wealthy Republicans -- combined with increasingly vocal Democratic charges that they represent a stealth GOP effort to wound Democrat John Kerry -- prompted Nader's vice presidential running mate, Green Party member Peter Camejo, to suggest the consumer advocate reject the money that doesn't come from loyal Nader voters.

"If there has been a wave of these (donations), then that's something Ralph and I will have to talk about -- and about returning their money,'' he said Thursday in an interview with The Chronicle. "If you oppose the war, if you're against the Patriot Act, your money is welcome.

"But if your purpose is because you think this is going to have an electoral effect, we don't want that money. I take no money from people who disagree with us,'' Camejo said. "We're not interested in that.''

But Camejo's views differ with Nader's recent defense of the contributions.

"We have no indication that the Republicans are trying to maneuver support for us,'' he said at a recent press conference. "There are three or four major Republican donors who have contributed to my campaign. But that's because I worked with them on a number of issues. ... It's all very small, relatively small, contributions. And we like it that way.''

But the financial records show that $23,000 in checks of $1,000 or more have come from loyal Republicans. Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Nijad Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush's 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150, 000 to GOP causes since 2000 alone.

All have donated the maximum $2,000 to Nader's campaign since April, records show.

Asked about the money from GOP backers, Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese countered that many of Kerry's donors also had given to Republicans, including Bush in the past.

"(Kerry) should renounce those donations and give them all back,'' he said. Pressed if Nader would do the same, Zeese said that wouldn't even be discussed "until (the parties) start to change the rules.''

A statewide poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University released Wednesday indicates that if Nader qualifies as a presidential candidate on the California ballot, the former consumer advocate would steal support from the Democratic ticket almost exclusively.

"He would drain about 4 percent of Kerry's support, almost all of it from Democrats, while having a negligible impact on Bush's vote or his support among Republicans,'' according to Institute director Phil Trounstine.

Democrats are worried about Nader's influence because they believe as a Green Party candidate in 2000, he pulled votes that would have gone to Democratic Vice President Al Gore in key states, thus helping Bush win the election.

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who was a spokesman for Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, said the check-writing was not "a merely serendipitous confluence of events,'' adding that "folks supporting Bush because they want fewer environmental protections and less corporate regulations don't have a lot in common with the Ralph Nader agenda. The only thing they have in common with Nader is they want to take votes from Kerry.''

But Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, calls such charges ridiculous, adding: "It's unfortunate that Democrats seem determined to disenfranchise voters who want an opportunity to cast votes for Ralph Nader.''

Still, other Republicans acknowledge that many in the party have mentioned that a donation to Nader may boost Bush, particularly in states where the vote is expected to be close.

"Republicans have no problem with it, if the goal is to keep President Bush in office,'' said Hoover Institution research fellow Bill Whalen, a veteran GOP strategist. "It's not pretty. But putting a guy (in the White House) you don't like is not pretty either.''

Whalen said the Republican National Committee or the Bush-Cheney campaign can't technically condone such donations, but "you absolutely want your activists to get out there and help Ralph run'' because of the effects he had on the 2000 election.

"Do the math,'' Whalen said.

Nader, who has decried the influence of corporations in the political arena, also has received more than $20,000 in "bundled'' contributions since March from GOP fund-raisers, according to the Federal Elections Commission documents that tally donations through May 31.

Bundling is the practice of gathering contributions together for maximum influence.

Records show Nader raised just more than $1 million for his presidential effort through May 31. Most of the money came from small, individual donors.

But Zeese said the Republican donors were "people whom Ralph knows from previous work.''

He downplayed the bundled donations, such as $18,850 in checks collected and submitted to Nader in May by Peter Tanous, president of Washington D.C.- based Lynx Investment Advisories.

"That was a house party,'' Zeese said of the donations collected by Tanous.

Tanous, who also made a personal $2,000 donation to Nader in May, was traveling and unavailable for comment Thursday, but his wife, Ann, said that her husband raised money for Nader because "he's a good friend.''

"My husband's a die-hard Republican who's supporting (Nader) so that there are other voices, other than the ones we're hearing in this election,'' particularly on issues that include Middle East politics, she said.

She declined to say whether her husband, who also donated $4,000 to the Republican National Committee and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign this year, would vote for Nader.

Tanous, records show, has also donated in the past to some Democrats, including $500 last year to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

Whalen says that Nader is playing games when he suggests that his donors are merely acting in friendship and that his message will resonate with GOP faithful.

"What's at the heart and soul of the Nader campaign? That corporations are evil and that we need to get out of Iraq,'' Whalen said.

Nader's Republican supporters

Total contributions of $1,000 or more to Nader as of May 31


Contributions from those who have also given to Republican causes, including the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Among Ralph Nader's top Republican donors:

-- Billionaire corporate executive John Egan of Massachusetts, who has raised at least$200,000 for the president's re-election campaign, donated $2,000 to Nader.

-- Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.

-- David Reed, president of Washington-based Foundation Petroleum Inc., who donated$1,000 to Nader and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

-- Jack and Laura Dangermond, both executives in Redlands-based Environmental SystemsResearch Institute, who each donated $2,000 to Nader's campaign and the Bush- Cheneycampaign and $25,000 to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.


Not only has Nader been accepting these donations, he's even lied about them.

In the Washington Post last month, he said, "We have not been accepting signatures obtained through organized Republican Party efforts in the three or four states where we have learned of such activity,". He was referring to states like Michigan which there was word of fradulence which nader was denying. However, the fact clearly was made that 45,000 of the 50,500 petition signatures submitted from Nader in Michigan were from Republicans.

That is all just the tip of the iceberg. There's Kenneth Sukhia, there's those two Tallahassee Republican lawyers who assisted Kenneth as Nader's lawyer, I can go on and on.

You can go on and on all you want in bashing the Democrats for their involvements, which I agree some are shameful and they must take and accept responsibility for those sorts of frauds. But the fact is, Nader is also a guilty conscience here, and, as it is, he is pitching softballs to George W. Bush once more.

Noah Eaton

Kerry takes far more money from the republicans than Nader 22.Sep.2004 16:20


But I guess that doesn't bother you as a blind Kerry follower. I mean who cares if Kerry is taking money from Halliburton, I'm sure it won't stop him from putting a stop to their war-profiteering...

>> he is pitching softballs to George W. Bush once more

Nader went to the RNC and called for Bush to be impeached while Kerry was off on vacation talking about how much he supports the war. Pot, meet kettle.


Presidential Candidate John Kerry has received increasingly more donations from employees of companies that have historically made large donations to President George W. Bush's campaign.

In fact, Bush and Kerry now share four of the same 10 largest donors this election cycle, all of whom are financial corporations, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity.


Also Pro Democracy 22.Sep.2004 16:37

Mistletoe Angel

Kerry has denounced Halliburton many times in recent memory. Have you seen the new "Cheney Halliburton" ad?

Your very source even suggests Nader still has $4.9 million in assets. Sure, it's less in comparison to Bush and Kerry, but the point is, Nader's no stranger to this game, and the higher the dollars shouldn't matter. That's the whole point I've been making in rebuttal to this thread; simply that sure, the Democrats have wronged, but Nader is also involved in these political games.

Could you please provide evidence where Kerry said he supported the war? Last time I checked, he has made his boldest statements against the Iraq war yet this week.

Noah Eaton

Noah 22.Sep.2004 18:14

George Bender

I didn't bother to read all your crap. You need to learn to make your comments brief. More words do not make an argument better.

Only 4 percent of Nader's campaign funds came from Republicans. He has a legal right to accept contributions from anyone, just as the Democrats and the Republicans do. No one has claimed that Nader has altered any of his positions because of contributions from anyone. The Kerry and Bush campaigns are mainly financed by the rich, who control their two parties. This has been widely known for a long time, yet you seem unable to deal with it. Both major parties are corrupt. Nader is not.

You are making a big deal about a trivial issue, while preparing to vote for a warmonger for president. Kerry voted for the war and still supports it. He has been criticizing Bush for not doing the war right, which is a distinction without a difference. We should have not gone into this war at all, and would not have had it not been for the congressional Democratic leadership supporting the war.

The system is broken 22.Sep.2004 20:58


I guess the only thing we all agree on, besides everyone wanting Bush out, is that our system is totally broken.
It is broken bad.

Somehow You Don't Want Him Out 24.Sep.2004 14:25

Mistletoe Angel

VoteNader04, if you really want Bush out, then how come you're refusing to stand beside the majority who want to vote him out?

Our system is full of cavities. We are the volunteers, each one of us are needed to make the fillings in America's fractured resolve.

George Bender, I agree I make long comments, but I find you make rather short ones that don't have anything to back up your claims. You argue about Kerry will drop in Oregon polls because Nader is off the ballot. Where's the evidence? You argue about Kerry still in support of this war, which I certainly don't believe considering all Kerry has said in recent months without turning away. Where's the evidence?

I find Nader's corrupt not so much from the endorsements themselves but by the people he is seeking help from to save his butt in getting on state ballots like Sukhia. The endorsements tell me something also about how his campaign is running when I make the connection, but it's more of who he's marching with that I find disappointing.

In denying all of this, this is only going to hurt Nader more than help him. I would hate to see Nader again factor into Florida, give Bush the presidency again, and see Nader swamped on and on by libel and hate mail and his career sink by a reputation that could never fully recover. I don't want that to happen, I know you don't want that to happen, and should this happen I'm just going to keep silent because I believe the last thing we need is more bad blood. But, inevitably, this WILL happen should this be the case, and few will ever take Nader seriously again, many will label him as a Republican cabana boy or something, and enough won't take him seriously in that he'll never have a shot at presidency in the future. On the other hand, if Nader would actually cooperate and look at the big picture here, it can help him later on, should Kerry be looked upon more unfavorably than favorably and Nader could have potential to be put on a pedestal in which he could be a favorite for the 2008 election, and more importantly, have the collected respect of the liberal left.

Trivial issue? You may want to think more clearly about this. This issue is about each man's character, and character is what shapes a leader.

Noah Eaton