[Green Party activist] Jayne King has banded together with some strange bedfellows: She says that the Electoral Reform event she’s helping to organize for this Saturday has support from a whole spectrum of political activists.

Sure, members of the Green Party and the ACLU will show up — you expected that, right? But so, King says, will Tea Party activists, Libertarians, Independents, and even a few Republicans. The common thread is that all agree that major reforms are due in our highly compromised elections system.

People are disenfranchised. Third- and fourth-party candidates are discouraged from running. The public is apathetic about voting. Lobbyists exert undue influence. And our state Legislature is stocked with millionaires who don’t represent the will of the common people . . .

The event is the “kickoff,” King says, for a series designed to get the public reinterested in its old civics lessons . . . In the future, the group will focus on at least ten areas of electoral reform.

Consider it a sign of the times.  Via Poli-Tea.

On March 19, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour signed SB 3058. It sets a 5 p.m. deadline for presidential elector paperwork. The old law set the deadline date, but not an hour. This bill only came into existence because of the 2008 incident at which the Secretary of State’s office rejected the paperwork for Brian Moore, Socialist Party presidential candidate. Thanks to Brian Moore for this news.

Ewe Sheep by George Gastin

Is Kucinich just herding sheep to slaughter?

IW: While faux progressive sites like Daily Kos and MoveOn have threatened Kucinich for not voting for the toothless health insurance bill, independent media site like Black Agenda Report and Democracy Now! have lobbed softballs his way. Even Nader refused to directly criticize Kucinich in his roll in mollifying a potential break away of progressives from the Democratic party over the Afghanistan/Iraq Wars and Health Care Reform. We need leaders who not afraid to speak truth to power, even when it’s their friends. We need a political party that is willing to stand up for the best interests of the voter, not defense contractors and insurance companies. And where is a real voice that is not afraid to speak truth to power like Cynthia McKinney? Is leaving her out part of Democracy Now’s continual policy of marginalizing the Green Party?

Black Agenda Report came to the only conclusion possible:

And it was a defining moment for those who believe there is anything politically worthwhile that can be accomplished within the structures of the Democratic Party, now firmly controlled by its corporate wing. There is nothing for a true progressive to do in Obama’s Democratic Party, but shut up, and roll over.

But hasn’t that really been true for a long while. Hasn’t the so-called progressive wing of the Democratic Party just been “sound and fury signifying nothing”. Where were they during the last Democratic convention? Where were the calls for ending the wars and single-payer healthcare to be put in the Democratic Party platform? Not a people was heard from these so-called progressives. Where have the the calls for the Congressional Budget Office to run the numbers on single-payer healthcare so we could all see how it would save our economy money? Not one of these so-called Pregressive Democratic Congressmen dared cross that line?

Democracy Now just asked Kucinich to the firedoglake question of whether he was “going to be giving back the money to people who gave to you all over the country because you said you would not support healthcare reform without a public option?”

Well, that ain’t enough. Kucinich should work to give a voice back to all the people he (and firedoglake) disenfranchised by supporting Obama’s candidacy.And Kucinish is still proper up the Obama presidency with the lesser evil argument that we “don’t want the Obama presidency to go down, because they’re concerned if that happens, forces of reaction would set in that would make it impossible to pass employee free choice and some other things that labor really wants.” Please does he really expect employee free to choice to be put up by Obama if he hasn’t already. More lambs to slaughter.

And what did Nader ask of Kucinich?

What—I think Dennis Kucinich has been known as the great dissenter in the Democratic Party—against the criminal wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, for impeaching Bush and Cheney, for single payer, on and on. His subcommittee hearings, which are almost never covered by the press, provide a standard for what House subcommittees should be investigating all over the country. But I think he owes an explanation to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of progressive Americans, many of whom who watch this show, who have clinged to Dennis Kucinich as the great dissenter, as the principled person, as the person who will hold the banner high. “The Star-Spangled Banner” has this phrase, “And the flag was still there.” But for the progressives in this country, they want to keep saying, “And Dennis Kucinich was still there.” So I would like him to go all over the country, after this malicious vote by the Democrats in the House, and address audiences all over, starting a complete new wave for full Medicare for all before this bill kicks in in 2014, so all the members running for reelection in 2010 are going to have to face it.

That Kucinich go on a speaking tour to amend for his sins? Yeah some more self-promotion to make progressive Democrats feel its ok to be in a party that opposes everything they stand for? That won’t help much.

And Nader mentions that Peter Camejo’s upcoming autobiography states that “Well, this is the latest chapter of corporate Democrats crushing progressive forces both inside their party and against third parties.” But Nader leaves out that Camejo confronted Kucinich on his direct attempts to undermine real progressive parties and Green Party candidates. And that Kucinich lied to Camejo when he promised to take a request to change from Green Party enrollment to Democratic Party enrollment out of his campaign video, but didn’t.

__________

Related post: Steve Alesch, a Green Party activist from Illinois comments on Kucinich.

On the 7th tragic commemoration of the uneccessary invasion of Iraq, Cindy will be on Democracy, Now! on Friday, March 19th to talk about it and Camp OUT NOW with Amy Goodman.

Please listen/watch!

Sifting through our last national poll really makes me think the time is ripe for a third party to have some success. Consider these findings:

-Independents are extremely fed up with both parties, giving Congressional Democrats a 61% disapproval rating and Congressional Republicans a 63% one.

-Beyond their general disapproval independents think both parties are too extreme ideologically. 50% think Congressional Republicans are too conservative and 49% think Congressional Democrats are too liberal compared to only 29% and 31% respectively who think those entities are ‘about right.’

-The ideological unhappiness is not exclusive to independents. 20% of Democrats think that their party is too liberal and 20% of Republicans think that their party is too conservative.

Combine the Democrats and Republicans who think their party’s too extreme with the independents who don’t like anyone and you have a pretty significant swath of the electorate.

Jensen often asks readers for suggestions, comments and feedback for future polls. This is a perfect opportunity to make the case for the inclusion of third party and independent candidates in their surveys this year: follow the link and urge Tom to follow up on his insight in the comments.

The corporate takeover of Washington is complete! Kucinich sells out!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 1:51 PM
From: steve.alesch at dupagegreens.org

Posted at Toms Stream blog and sent as an e-mail announcement from Tom Cleland:

Subject: I hereby resign from the DFL
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:35 AM

On Sunday I participated in my SD44 DFL [Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, the "Democratic Party"  in Minnesota] convention, seeing for myself once again that the Democratic Party is where progressive politics goes to die.

This year I caucused DFL as explained on my blog Feb. 2. At the time, the Greens did not have a strong candidate for Governor. After hearing all the callers to radio shows, disappointed with Obama, I thought it might be a good time to check back in with the Dems to see how they were coming along.

As an uncommitted delegate to my senate district, I was courted by the gubernatorial campaigns, getting phone calls in the days leading up to the convention, and at the convention I had a chance to speak with four of the candidates in person. I knew that the front-runners for governor were Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and State House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, who at nine syllables, I am shortening to MAK. I already knew Rybak was bad, as documented extensively on this blog, but I wanted to confirm MAK’s position on the Twins stadium tax.

There were plenty of workers for the various campaigns, wearing the T-shirts of their respective candidates. I asked a young woman working for MAK about the stadium tax, and she said MAK was against it. This didn’t sound right, so I called Farheen Hakeem, who told me she personally protested outside MAK’s house in 2006, and that MAK opposed putting the stadium tax to a vote of the people in Hennepin County. Later in the day, I spoke with MAK, and asked her about it. She said it was because she was opposed to referendums in general. Well, I happened to know that a referendum was legally required by statute for this type of expenditure, because the people felt it was that important, and so I found MAK’s answer unacceptable.

When I spoke with John Marty about stadium taxes, he said he was the only candidate who is answering with a definite “No.” The other candidates are saying, “Not this year.”

Inside the auditorium, there were plenty of empty seats in the section assigned to my precinct. I selected a seat along the aisle, and filled out a ballot with 72 platform resolutions as I listened to and watched the proceedings, which at the outset were largely procedural, along with speeches from officials and candidates. After MAK spoke, U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, in the aisle to my right, got down to my level and urged me to vote for Matt Entenza. I said I was concerned about Entenza’s wife’s ties to UnitedHealthcare. Ellison said she doesn’t work there anymore. I knew she worked for an environmental company now so I asked about Entenza’s position on cap and trade. Ellison didn’t know but he said Entenza supports green energy.

Later in the day, Rybak also greeted me from the aisle, shaking hands and saying, “I don’t think we’ve met.” I said I was Tom Cleland and had taken issue with him about police brutality on my blog. He said, “Sure,” and stepped back, which is what I would have done. Continuing the discussion could have caused a scene. For the record, while I have a much lower profile and don’t expect him to remember me, we have met in the past. In 2001 when he was first running for mayor, I met him and his wife, I think at a house party or fundraiser, not sure if I introduced myself by name. In 2003, when a coworker and I were canvassing for Greenpeace on Nicollet Mall, I recognized him walking with his bicycle and said hi. And in 2009, in the coat check line for the Blue State Ball, I said I was with the Green Party, and he said we need to do all we can to get Cam Gordon re-elected. (I didn’t have a problem with Rybak endorsing Gordon, just the other way around.)  I also attended his first inaugural ball, though I don’t think I spoke with him that night. So I suppose my opposition to Rybak has built up gradually over the years.

The other candidate I spoke with Sunday was Paul Thissen. While he said that he supported the referendum, he did vote for the stadium tax. Later, during the walking subcaucus process, I told one of his runners that’s all I need to know.

They only allotted four hours for the convention, and ended up running over. I volunteered for the Rules Committee and probably should have pushed for more time, but I got busy and only attended one committee meeting. If I had to do it over again I would have at least asked to modify the agenda.

They allotted a half-hour for debating resolutions, which was fine by me. But some delegates thought that was too much time, so they introduced a floor motion to skip it, which failed. It would have taken less time if they had simply left it as is. So they debated resolutions, and the high point for me was when a woman criticized Obama on nuclear power. I was also pleased they had a resolution on divestment from Israel, though two people spoke against it and I didn’t hear anyone in favor.

Finally, they got to the most interesting order of business, item 16 of 23, the election of state delegates and alternates. These people will choose the next DFL-endorsed candidate for governor. The DFL typically uses the walking subcaucus method, where people form groups based on combinations of candidates or issues to try to get like-minded people to represent them at the state convention. I believe it was something like 231 SD44 delegates electing 21 state delegates, requiring 11 local delegates to send 1 delegate to state.

On the overhead screen they displayed the procedure text, which said that people would step up to the microphones for a first round to simply announce the name of their subcaucus, and then for a second round to take 30 seconds to describe their subcaucus. This is as I had recalled it from years past. So I waited my turn, and announced the name of my subcaucus, “Uncommitted Ten Key Values.” There was no applause, perhaps because they don’t believe in them, but probably because they don’t know what they are. I then flashed a peace sign, which I think got a little more reaction. So everybody took turns announcing the subcaucus names, but they were running out of time so they passed a floor motion to skip the caucus descriptions! (This is not what I’ve been used to. In the Green Party, we have candidate speeches, then the members ask questions of each candidate, and then the members comment.) If I had been allowed to speak for 60 seconds, I would have said from memory what I had rehearsed:

“Hi, I’m Tom Cleland, and this subcaucus is Uncommitted Ten Key Values. The Key Values are Democracy, Ecology, Peace, Justice, Feminism, Diversity, Decentralization, Community-Based Economics, Global Responsibility, and Future Focus. These are borrowed from the Green Party. I was with the Green Party for ten years. As you may know, Greens can sometimes tip the balance. If they had run a candidate for U.S. Senate, Al Franken would not be elected today. I can say that Marty might be acceptable to Greens, but Greens are afraid that Marty might endorse Rybak, who is bad on police brutality, or Anderson Kelliher, who opposed putting the stadium tax to a vote of the people. We can all learn a lot from progressive point person Dave Bicking, I’m wearing his T-shirt. Let’s go, Uncommitted Ten Key Values!”

So we began our first walking process, I held up a sign listing the 10KV, and sadly, no one joined my subcaucus. However, I did have a chance to shout parts of my message to anyone within earshot in the noisy auditorium. A number of runners, both committed and uncommitted to candidates, asked me to join their groups. I said only if I could be the delegate (to state) and of course there was no deal. I also shared some of my talking points with them.

I waited until the second and final walking process, before ceremoniously walking over and joining the Marty subcaucus, led by Lena Katharine Gardner, who recruited me, and who spoke on behalf of Steve Kelley at my precinct caucus, before he dropped out. In the Marty subcaucus, I was pleased to see a couple other familiar faces, Jordan Kushner, also of my precinct, and Diane Steen-Hinderlie’s husband John. Diane is a fellow Green. We were able to get two delegates to state. My understanding is that usually the subcaucuses are supposed to each hold elections within their groups to determine the actual people who will go to state, and allow for some vetting to take place. But to make sure we would get the two delegates, Lena had to cut some deals, giving a delegate to the Tom Rukavina subcaucus, and an alternate to the “No Corporate Personhood” subcaucus. Between that and gender balance, with only two women expressing interest in traveling to state, people scattered and there was no vote. Instead, there was a tense discussion with the Rukavina people over what the deal was. A Rybak worker was standing nearby eavesdropping, so I took the opportunity to tell him about the police brutality videos on this blog. So here’s our delegation, I just hope everybody honors their agreement to vote for Marty by the second ballot at state:

Female delegate: Lena Katharine Gardner
Male delegate: Brian Rice (Rukavina)
Female alternate: Cathy Murphy
Male alternate: Noam Freshman (No Corporate Personhood)

I had some nice visits with members of the delegation. I got to talking with Noam, and said that what I’m looking for in a delegate is a willingness to walk out of the DFL convention. He asked why and I basically said to join the Green Party. He then brought out the old argument about Florida 2000 and I mentioned Lieberman and asked if he was asking us to ignore the issues. He said no and had to go register but I wish we could have kept talking. It may sound arrogant on my part, but I feel he was asking us to ignore the issues and vote a certain way because more people are less informed. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who think like Noam, and so we are stuck, and I’m afraid we will remain stuck until we face a crisis of unprecedented magnitude. I feel like I need to study survivalism or something.

The SD44 delegate count was:

Rybak 8
Anderson Kelliher 5
Marty 2
Thissen 1
Uncommitted 5

Before I left I told DFL superdelegate Eric Margolis that I was going to reactivate my Green Party membership. He asked why and I said I was appalled that Rybak got 8 delegates. He said I inadvertently helped them get another delegate by triggering the second walking phase. As far as I’m concerned, that’s just one more reason to quit the DFL. I know that Lena cut that second deal with the personhood people during the second phase. Not sure how we would have done if we had relied on rounding after Phase One.

On the way out, I saw more Rybak workers and told them about the brutality videos on my blog. I wish someone would make a TV commercial out of them.

DFL rules state that to caucus with them, you cannot be an active member of another political party. So I was an inactive member of the Green Party. I did not caucus Green, and I did not post to the GP listservs. I was very critical of the 5CD Green Party in January when many of the members would not sign a pledge to vote against Obama in 2012. Since then, however, there have been some positive developments, including a 5CDGP press release opposing the reappointment of MPD Chief Dolan, and Green Council Member Cam Gordon voting against Dolan March 3 and March 12. While I now wish to reactivate my membership in the 5CD Green Party, I may identify more closely as a friend of the newly-formed SD61 Green Party, which has a higher proportion who have signed the pledge.

My choice for governor? I want to take a closer look at Richard Klatte. If the Greens don’t endorse him, I might write in Al Flowers or Ken Pentel. Or John Marty, but only if he does not endorse the DFL nominee.

Tom Cleland
Golden Valley

Cutler sees natural gas as an important ingredient in lowering costs and supports an LNG plant in Maine. He would shift home heating from oil to electricity. His most innovative idea – and it’s really an old one – is to create a public power authority…

Cutler called for changes in the way we do easements, citing landowners’ concerns about liability and value. He said resolving these concerns is “centrally important to continuing uses in the north woods…”

If there has been a more contentious issue between sportsmen and landowners than Sunday hunting, I missed it. As a primary advocate for Sunday hunting, I have plenty of bruises to show how tough this issue has been in the past.

So the amazing thing here for me was that some of the candidates favor Sunday hunting and others are open to the possibility…

Cutler said he “is not opposed to it…”

Cutler elaborated on his opposition to consolidation, saying, “I’ve done government reorganizations at the federal level — some worked, some didn’t. Moving boxes around is not smart business. When you have agencies that relate directly to what centrally defines our state and manage our resources, mergers don’t make sense. What does make sense is changing the way we do business to reduce costs and tear down the wall of no.”

The American Independent Party will have primary contests on June 8, 2010, between candidates who do not want the AIP to be allied with the national Constitution Party, and candidates who are loyal to the national Constitution Party.

The statewide candidates for the anti-Constitution Party group are: Ed Noonan, U.S. Senator; Markham Robinson, Governor; an unknown individual for Lieutenant Governor; Lawrence Beliz for Controller.

The statewide candidates for the pro-Constitution Party group are: Don Grundmann, U.S. Senator; Chelene Nightingale, Governor; Jim King, Lieutenant Governor; Merton Short, Secretary of State; Nathan Johnson, Controller; Diane Templin, Attorney General; Clay Pedersen, Insurance Commissioner.

Robert Lauten is the only candidate for State Treasurer, and it is not clear which side he is on.

The anti-Constitution Party group webpage, www.aipca.org, does not yet list any candidates. The pro-Constitution Party group webpage, www.aipcalif.blogspot.com, does list its candidates. Besides the statewide candidates, it lists six for U.S. House (plus a seventh who is listed as a write-in candidate), 2 for Board of Equalization, one for State Senate, and one for Assembly.

The internal rules for the American Independent Party are contained in the California Election Code. The rules say that all the party’s nominees for partisan office, except Insurance Commissioner, are automatically members of the State Central Committee of the party. In addition, nominees may appoint several other members of that Committee. Therefore, the identity of the primary winners not only determines who the party’s nominees will be, but influence who sits on the party’s governing body.

The California Secretary of State will not release the names of primary candidates until April 1, but it is possible for anyone to check with various counties to see which candidates have filed. Each candidate must have filed in his or her home county no later than March 12 (except that if the incumbent didn’t file, the deadline is March 17).

it’s a mystery why Marshfield businessman and former state representative candidate John Valianti wants to gather Massachusetts “independents” into an official state political party . . . There are three official political parties in the state – Republican, Democrat and Libertarian. If voters want a concrete political affiliation, they can join one of those parties or use one of the 18 political “designations” recognized by the secretary of state’s office . . . We have no scientific evidence or actual polling data, but we suspect most of the people who register to vote as unenrolled consider themselves “independent” – and don’t want to officially join an “Independent Party.” [Emphasis added.]

Perhaps it simply hasn’t occurred to the Patriot Ledger that people might un-enroll from the Democratic and Republican Parties, not because they are opposed to the very idea of party affiliation, but because they are opposed to the idea of affiliation with the Democratic and Republican Parties. Peralta writes in response:

The Patriot Ledger editorialized against the formation of an Independent Party in Massachusetts and predicted few “independents” would gravitate toward such a party. The Patriot Ledger’s response was similar to that of some Oregon newspapers when we formed the Independent Party of Oregon.As secretary of that organization, I would like to share a few thoughts with your readers. There is something happening in America that the mainstream political establishment and the mainstream press have not gotten a handle on: namely, that about half of all Americans do not believe the two-party system is working.

A recent poll by the Wall Street Journal showed 46 percent of voters favor formation of a third “independent political party.” Other polls have put the number at over 50 percent. Americans are tired of polarization, demonization and the unwillingness of partisan politicians to work collaboratively to solve the major issues of the day, and they are demanding a change. Where such change is being offered, people are gravitating toward it.

For the sake of the people of Massachusetts, I hope the Massachusetts Independent Party emerges as a force for the kind of moderate, pragmatic reform that our country so desperately needs.

Cross-posted from Poli-Tea.

On March 15, Lynne Williams announced that her petition drive to get on the Green Party’s primary ballot for Governor will not succeed. See this story. Although the Green Party is ballot-qualified in Maine, it still has ballot access problems. That is because Maine is one of three states that makes it very difficult for members of a small ballot-qualified party to get on their own party’s primary ballot.

Maine requires 2,000 signatures for a candidate to get on a primary ballot for statewide office. The law does not take into consideration the number of registrants in that party. So, Republicans need 2,000 signatures but can get those signatures from the 258,147 registered Republicans. Democrats need 2,000 signatures but can get them from the 310,950 registered Democrats. Greens need 2,000 signatures but can only get them from the 27,354 registered Greens (these registration totals are from November 2008).

Generally, states that require signatures for a candidate to get on a primary ballot, and which require that the candidate can only get signatures from members of his or her party, at least are rational enough to make the requirement either very easy, or a percentage of the number of eligible signers. The Maine law could probably be overturned in court, if the Maine Green Party were to sue. Storer v Brown, a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1974, said that ballot access requirements are unconstitutional if they require the signatures of substantially more than 5% of the eligible signers.

Fortunately for the Maine Green Party, the law on how a party retains its spot on the ballot no longer requires a party to poll any particular share of the vote in November. Instead, a party retains its status if it has at least 10,000 registered members who actually vote in November (it doesn’t matter whom they vote for, just that they show up at the polls and cast a ballot).

It would theoretically be possible for Lynne Williams to be the Green Party nominee for Governor if she were to poll at least 4,000 write-ins at the June 10 Green Party primary. However, Williams is not interested in pursuing that path. The party will concentrate on campaigning for its legislative nominees.

In the past, the party has run strong candidates for governor, like Lynne Williams herself and Pat LaMarche.  The party has never before received less than five percent of the gubernatorial vote, but, as Richard Winger pointed out in his Ballot Access News post, due to ballot access law changes that is less significant than it was in the past.

The article Winger cites also says this:

Williams, a Bar Harbor attorney, also blamed changes to the state’s Clean Election Law for dooming her candidacy, particularly one that increased to $40,000 the amount of contributions publicly-funded candidates must raise to tap into the Clean Election fund. The money must be raised in individual $5 contributions.

On March 15, the 5th circuit refused to rehear Libertarian Party v Dardenne, 09-30307. Earlier the 5th circuit had ruled that the dispute is moot. Oddly, though, another panel of the 5th circuit had ruled a few weeks earlier that a similar lawsuit from Mississippi is not moot. The Mississippi case involved Brian Moore’s being kept off the ballot because of late paperwork. The Louisiana case involves Bob Barr, Brian Moore, and Ted Weill (Reform Party 2008 presidential candidate) being kept off the ballot because of late paperwork.

The 5th circuit did not explain why it won’t rehear the case. The Libertarian Party will probably ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.

Montana has four ballot-qualified parties: Constitution, Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican. All four nominate by primary. Filing for the June 2010 primaries closed on March 15.

The Libertarian Party has a candidate for the only statewide office on the ballot, U.S. House. The Libertarians also have one candidate for State Senate, five for State House, and one for Sheriff.

The Constitution Party has six candidates for the State House, but none for the only statewide office (U.S. House), and none for State Senate. Because the party is not running for a statewide office, it will lose its spot on the ballot after November 2010. When a party meets the vote test it remains on for the next two elections. It met the vote test in 2006, which kept on for 2008 and 2010, but it did not meet the test in 2008. However, the party has successfully completed the party petition four times before, so presumably it can do so again in 2011.

Montana requires independent candidates (for office other than President) to submit petitions in March. Out of the 125 state legislative races, only three independents filed. Two chose the label “independent” and one, Cheryl Wolfe, chose “Green.

In the corporate media and mainstream political press, advocates of third party and independent politics are like Schroedinger’s cat: they exist and they do not exist at the very same time. At Green Party Watch, Dave Schwab invites readers to join an ongoing discussion of third party media strategy:

Recent stories about media outlets and environmental organizations turning a blind eye to Green candidates Rich Whitney and Laura Wells inspired a piece at GreenChange.org entitled “How can we overcome the press blackout of Green candidates?” The piece has inspired a lively discussion with a lot of interesting ideas flying around, so come join the conversation on a topic close to our hearts here at Green Party Watch.

In the Green Change article, Schwab sketches a two-pronged strategy to counter the media’s duopolist bias:

The internet is constantly giving us inexpensive, increasingly effective ways of getting our message out without having to go through the traditional gatekeepers. Blogs, videos on youtube and vimeo, live streaming services, social media like twitter and facebook, and other technologies give Greens the opportunity to take their message directly to supporters, but for now, these opportunities have been severely underutilized. Plus, even a well-developed “Green media” would be more useful for engaging supporters than for reaching out to the general public.

So aside from creating our own media, the second part of our strategy for breaking the press blackout (“greenout”?) should be organized pressure campaigns to get Greens included in press outlets, organizational voter guides (like the California League of Conservation Voters site), debates, and other media that can bring the Green message to a general public audience – which is ultimately what we need to succeed.

The conversation that follows in the comments there is worth perusing, and the topic should be of interest to anyone concerned with third party and independent media strategy. From the outset, a stickler might object to the presupposition that there is in fact a media “blackout” of the Green Party and Green Party candidates for office. The Green Party News Page at Third Party and Independent Daily, for instance, aggregates dozens of news and blog items every twenty-four hours. The press do not not report on the Green Party. But if there is no blackout per se, the lighting is nonetheless dim: there is clearly an institutional media bias against third party and independent candidates for office. At IPR, Ross Levin points out that this bias extends to polling organizations as well:

Even though Green Party candidate for governor Rich Whitney got over 10 percent of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial race, for some reason Rasmussen has left him – and other third party candidates – out of a recently released poll. Still, without any third party candidate mentioned by name, the “other” category was chosen by six percent of voters.

Any campaign to pressure news and media organizations to cease excluding third party and independent political voices from our political discourse should also target polling organizations. Arguably, success on this score could prove doubly effective: the inclusion of third party and independent candidates in public opinion polls would likely lead to wider coverage of those campaigns in the political press.

Commenters at Green Change also point out that third party and independent campaigns are not without blame if they are marginalized by the press. In many instances, they do not have a media strategy adequate to their informational environment. Commenters suggested an invigoration and expansion of independent Green media networks, as well as greater outreach to and pressure on wider and more influential outlets, but they also noted that without significant output from the campaigns themselves, these networks cannot be put to good use. Thus, it was suggested that campaigns produce more press releases and short web videos, engage in social networking, hold press conferences or rallies etc. One might also consider the possibility of reaching out to other third party and independent groups and campaigns.

If, for instance, the Green and Libertarian candidates in a given race hold a press conference together, it would seem to be an inherently more newsworthy event than if each of them held press conferences on the very same subject independently of one another over a period of days. And there are automatically at least two possible political dynamics built into such a scenario, depending on whether the candidates agree or disagree on the issue at hand, i.e. the subject matter dealt with at the press conference, thus providing media with the opportunity to reproduce one of their two favorite narrative lines: “strange bedfellows” or the standard “he said/she said” style report.

Further suggestions for third party and independent media strategy?

The Philadelphia Inquirer of March 11 has this editorial, focusing attention on the fact that the challenge to Ralph Nader’s 2004 Pennsylvania petition was illegally carried out with state resources and state employees. Petition challenges in Pennsylvania are brought by private individuals, yet the people who challenged Nader’s petition used government assets. Nader is still being asked to pay approximately $80,000 to the people who challenged his petition.

The editorial also scolds the Pennsylvania Attorney General for accepting campaign contributions from the law firm that represented the challengers.