Blast from the Past: 2004

GOP donors funding Nader: Bush supporters give independent's bid a financial lift

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.

Ralph Nader on Meet the Press:

"Not a chance. If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, emerge in a different form."

This was said in response to a question about how he would feel if his presence on the ballot tilted the balance in Florida or Ohio to McCain and McCain became president. Clearly, he believes the Democrats will win this election and take control of the White House. So, that being the case, how does he expect his candidacy to influence things? In his own words:

You know, when you see the paralysis of the government, when you see Washington, D.C., be corporate-occupied territory, every department agency controlled by overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people, you--one feels an obligation, Tim, to try to open the doorways, to try to get better ballot access, to respect dissent in America in the terms of third parties and, and independent candidates; to recognize historically that great issues have come in our history against slavery and women rights to vote and worker and farmer progressives, through little parties that never ran--won any national election. Dissent is the mother of ascent. And in that context, I have decided to run for president.

It's interesting that he seems to be waxing nostalgic for the "Know Nothings" of the American party whose main contribution to the politics of their time was acting as a spoiler in the 1855 campaign and getting the Democrats elected on a pro-slavery campaign in the state of Alabama, and the National Woman's Party which explicitly was not a political party and did not run for president. But I guess that would be delving a bit too deeply into the actual historic context.

Two Parties?

A lot of people talk about Democrats and Republicans as two monolithic, unchanging parties. The same people also talk about third parties as a clear alternative to these two parties, and how the system needs to be changed in order to give the people "real choice", which in their minds is defined by more choices than just Democrat or Republican.

The thing which most of these people miss is this: they actually already have the choices they are looking for. ( The two monolithic parties are a myth. )