[External Relations] Re: [statecom] CC Position statement on attempts by Nader/Camejocampaign's supporters to usurp

[Owen Broadhurst]

I thank Mike Heichman for his post, and actually find that I concur with 
quite frankly most of what Mike has to say here. Where state parties have 
declined to be supportive of the Cobb campaign, in allowing David Cobb to 
fielded by their state party, support for that position was often won on the 
basis of a misinformation campaign- a campaign that distorted, amplified and 
abused central issues that I, Mike and others raised about the convention 
while adding in fabrications, omissions and bile all for good measure. The 
word "steal" is not an inappropriate depiction of the fruits of this 
campaign.

I do not object to the motion's language urging the Nader/ Camejo campaign 
to please keep its hands off Green Party ballot lines. I believe it is 
appropriate for the GPUS to vociferously protest a competing candidate's 
interference in internal party matters. What I found objectionable is the 
following obliquely formulated policy- never ratified by the GPUS CC- that I 
believe lays a foundation for centralized national control over state party 
ballot lines:

"We therefore call on Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo to publicly support the 
right of the Green Party of the United States to place the Cobb/LaMarche 
ticket on state Green Party ballots wherever that is legally possible."

This one sentence contains language that, if ratified, effectively would 
implement new policy that no national Green organization of state parties 
ever had attempted implementation of before. While the language is contained 
within, and is borne of, a legitimate protest of Nader/ Camejo campaign 
tactics- this particular sentence asserts a newly created national party 
right to compel within any state placement of the national nominating 
convention candidate through legal means. I see the phrase "legally 
possible" (and my own phrase, "through legal means") as a reference to 
possible lobbying of any state's Secretary of State or Board of Elections- 
or, more frighteningly, possible litigation- to literally remove control 
over state ballot lines from state parties where national candidates are 
concerned, regardless of how state party membership might actually feel.

Such a hijacking of what I construe to be state party property seems, at 
least to me, to be direct contravention of party Decentralization and an 
affront to Grassroots Democracy. While I should certainly hope that a state 
party would indeed adhere to that party's affiliation agreement, I do 
believe that continued adherance is a decision for that state party's 
grassroots rank and file to make.

This is actually not a motion that could impact internal state party 
decisions within the GRP. State election laws in Massachusetts are clear 
having assigned responsibility for who may be fielded on our presidential 
ballot line squarely with the one state recognized state party co-chair. 
However, this state party routinely directs its one state recognized state 
party co-chair- via state committee meeting or state convention- with 
regards to this. It was OUR decision to field David Cobb, and it was an 
internal decision arrived at democratically. This was, is, and must remain 
our prerogative in accordance with relevant GRP bylaws that ensure GRP 
structural autonomy.

Within those few states where state election laws might well permit a 
national organization whose decision making authorities tend to be both very 
far removed from, and rarely beholden to, state party membership, however, 
the new policy's implementation actually threatens autonomy.

My belief that the motion, with noted sentence included, would threaten 
autonomy has its foundation in my fears over how the phrase "right of the 
Green Party of the United States to place the Cobb/LaMarche ticket on state 
Green Party ballots wherever that is legally possible" may by the national 
Steering Committee be construed in future years. Were the motion passed with 
this language included, it is my belief that a new policy would then be in 
force allowing the GPUS as a national body power to contest state party 
ballot decisions even through litigation.

I percieve the GPUS as I percieved its ASGP predecessor, the national 
confederation of autonomous state parties acting cooperatively however 
decentralized in its decision making. The GRP has itself long been steadfast 
in the defense of its own autonomy. We can see this in our party bylaws:

1.1 The Green-Rainbow Party is an autonomous independent political party 
sharing kinship
with other Green Parties and Green organizations in the USA, through our 
common
adherence to the Ten Key Values (See Articles 2 and 16). The Green-Rainbow 
Party also
shares common goals and values with other Green Parties and Green 
organizations
around the world.

12.1 The Green-Rainbow Party may nominate or endorse candidates for local, 
regional, state,
and national offices.

12.5 No candidate will be nominated or endorsed by the Green-Rainbow Party 
if the
nomination or endorsement is opposed by any affiliated Green-Rainbow Local 
in that
candidate’s electoral district and that engages in electoral activity.

12.9 State conventions or an affiliated Green-Rainbow Local may endorse 
independent
candidates who support the Ten Key Values and who generally endorse the 
state
platform.

13.2 The Green-Rainbow Party will seek and maintain statewide ballot access 
as allowed by
state law. This will include, but is not limited to, running candidates for 
local, regional,
state, and federal offices in order to gain and retain ballot access. The 
Green-Rainbow
Party will also reserve the right to exercise legal action (i.e. lawsuits, 
amica curiae, etc.)
as necessary where ballot access or electoral laws are determined to be 
unduly restrictive
or not in accordance with democratic principles.

14.3 Decisions and rules of the USGP, other Green state parties, or any 
other Green
organizations will in no way be considered binding upon the Green-Rainbow 
Party.

==========

With Mike's discomfort over the prospect of dis-affiliating recalcitrant 
parties in dissent regarding the national nominating convention candidate, I 
can certainly sympathise. I certainly do believe that the GPUS and its 
affiliates cannot afford to be vengeful, and I certainly do believe that 
Nader/ Camejo campaign supporters should continue to be welcomed and valued 
within our parties. I do not view disaffiliation as a punitive measure, but 
mere recognition of circumstances that already have occurred.
The national party has as its raison d'etre the nomination of a national 
candidate, and state parties affiliate with this national party for the 
purpose of fielding that candidate. A state party that chooses to field a 
different candidate is a state party that has already chosen to decline 
participation in the national party's raison d'etre. Such a party's 
continued affiliation serves that party no useful purpose, and the national 
party's decision to never contest such a party's affiliation serves only to 
render national nominating convention candidacies mere suggestions, 
endorsements, simple advice. I clearly treasure state party continued 
autonomy- but while a state party's decision to withhold its ballot line 
from the national nominating convention candidate should be respected, said 
decision should- in my humble opinion- be viewed as state party repudiation 
of affiliation.

=======

Again, please know that I by no means am attempting to dictate any course of 
action regarding any motion to the GRP's GPUS CC representatives. I trust 
their wisdom in coming to considered decisions that might not, need not, and 
ought not reflect only my own point of view. Said CC representatives shall 
undoubtedly consider during their deliberations not only my concerns, but 
also Mike's remarks, and any viewpoints heard by them- and be guided 
ultimately by their very own conscience and sense of how to best serve our 
party. My viewpoint is a necessarily biased viewpoint that is also 
necessarily limited in scope, as is true for the viewpoints of any one 
individual.

Sincerely yours,
Owen R. Broadhurst

----Original Message Follows----
From: Mike Heichman <mikeh.massed at rcn.com>
Subject: Re: [statecom] CC Position statement on attempts by 
Nader/Camejocampaign's supporters to usurp
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2004 10:46:47 -0400


Hi Owen (and everyone else):

It has been clear that the progressive movement has been seriously divided
over the presidential election of 2004. It is also clear to us that the GPUS
has also been seriously divided; the national convention is a reflection of
those divisions.

I believe that it is very important to stand for principle, and at the same
time to respect that others may be arguing for other principles.
Additionally, this has been a very emotional and scary time; many people,
including our comrades, are acting out of fear and with other negative
factors.

What role should the GRP play? I believe that we have been playing a very
positive role. Recognizing our limited numbers and resources, we have
attempted to have a good process with good discussions. I believe that we
also played a very positive role in Milwaukee.

----------------------------------------------
Cobb was not my choice in Milwaukee and I have had major problems with his
"strategy". However, despite the major problems in Milwaukee, I recognize
that he is the party's choice. Since the convention, more often than not, I
am very happy and pleased with the direction of the campaign. Cobb is the
candidate of our state party and he is my candidate too.

I believe that the GPUS has taken a principled stand in support of the
rights of Nader/Camejo to be on the ballot; I believe that we have done the
same in this state (Is this true? Have we issued a statement?).

On the other hand, I believe that the Nader/Camejo forces since the
convention have NOT behaved in the same principled way. Despite the flaws in
Milwaukee, which they have a right to be angry about, they made their choice
and did not get the result that they were seeking in Milwaukee. They have
also discovered that it has been much harder than they believed to get
ballot lines; I feel compassionate about their pain and righteous anger.
However, the GPUS is NOT responsible for this situation!

I believe that Nader/Camejo and their forces have been behaving in an
unprincipled manner to STEAL "our" ballot lines. I say "our" lines because I
believe that the question of "ownership" is layered. Our line in MA, as well
as the other states, is a results of our own efforts in COLLABORATION with
the national party. Additionally, I believe that  Nader/Camejo are complicit
in this effort to STEAL our ballot lines. As many of you know, I was a close
supporter of Kent Mesplay in Milwaukee. In that capacity, I witnessed the
pain and anger of Camejo; it was clear that he believed that the nomination
of Cobb was not legitimate ("legitimate" is my word).

----------------------------------------------------------------
I support the resolution. I believe that it is a fair representation of how
we are experiencing these developments. I believe that it is very moderate
in that it is not condemning Nader/Camejo; instead it is informing them and
asking them to correct the situation. The national party has a right to
defend itself. Additionally, to the extent that the Nader/Camejo forces are
successful in STEALING our lines, they weaken our national party and our
state parties as well (Part of our strength comes from our connection to the
national party.).

For me, this is not an issue of grassroots democracy. This resolution does
not take away the right of a state party to defy the national party. This
resolution is aimed at the efforts of forces outside our party who are
attacking us.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Owen says that "Green" states that nominate Nader/Camejo
should be disaffiliated. I disagree. On November 3, the sun will rise. It is
my hope that the GRP will play a constructive role in this state and
nationally, to try to repair the damage done and to rebuild our party and
the progressive movement. We cannot afford to be revengeful, even if we
believe that we are acting out of principles.
-----------------------------------------------------
Mike Heichman
617-265-8143