Conason: Ralph Nader's Got Some Explaining To Do

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/03/15/nader/print.html

Office space
Ralph Nader's got some explaining to do. Why is his campaign headquarters housed in his nonprofit's tax-exempt offices?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

March 15, 2004  |  Ever since Ralph Nader announced his independent candidacy for president last month, both friends and critics have wondered why he is running -- and where the great gadfly will obtain the enormous resources needed for a national campaign. Already there is evidence that his organization may be cutting financial corners and skirting the dubious edge of federal election and tax laws.

The Nader 2004 campaign is presently headquartered at 1400 16th Street in Washington -- a modern, downtown office building where it shares a suite with an outfit called Citizen Works. That group describes itself as "a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization founded by Ralph Nader in April 2001 to advance justice by strengthening citizen participation in power."

In other words, his presidential campaign is occupying the same premises as one of his nonprofit groups. Finding the Nader campaign office isn't easy, although campaigns usually seek to encourage easy access for volunteers and journalists. While the campaign quickly put up an official Web site, it lists no telephone number and no street address for the national headquarters. Only a post office box and an e-mail address are posted on the site. (By contrast, telephone numbers and addresses are easily found on John Kerry's Web site.) Reached at the unpublished telephone number for the Nader presidential headquarters, a campaign worker said the campaign is located in the same offices as Citizen Works.

Sharing space with Citizen Works must be a convenient arrangement for Theresa Amato, the campaign manager of Nader 2004. Having assumed command of Nader's presidential bid -- just as she did four years ago -- Amato is now listed as "on leave" from her position as president of Citizen Works, which she helped to found three years ago. Nader himself is both the founder and a donor to Citizen Works.

more...requires subscription

[Monte Carlo]

1. Nader's part of the Washington establishment, too.

He's been there for years, he knows how the system works, and he knows where its soft spots are, and he exploits them just like anybody else. I voted for him in 2000, thinking he was above and beyond the fray, but I know now that he's not.

[still_one]

2. In most pollsI have seen

when Nader is included, Kerry either ties, or loses

[MadHound]

3. Oh heaven forbid, Nader's skirting election laws

Better to skirt it than outright break it like Clinton did with his unconstitutional concept of soft money donations:eyes:

[Nederland]

6. Huh?

What section of the Constitution does soft money contributions violate?

[MadHound]

7. It happened a couple of months ago

Perhaps it slipped by you.

"Supreme Court upholds 'soft money' ban
Tuesday, December 16, 2003 Posted: 3:42 PM EST (2042 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a victory Wednesday for supporters of political campaign finance reform, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on "soft money" contributions and limits on political advertising by advocacy groups before elections. "
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/10/scotus.campaign.finance/>

This ruling is also the basis for the 'Pugs challenging MoveOn's ads, etc. When soft money was first proposed by Clinton, it was deemed unconstitutional then, but neither party wanted to challenge it in court, since they were both making out like the corporate whores they are. But when the 'Pugs saw that it was bolstering the Dems more than them, they took it to court. This was one of the unsung reasons that McCain-Feingold got passed.

So yes, soft money is illegal and unconstitutional. As far as which specific section of the Constitution it violates, you would have to check out the ruling itself.

[redqueen]

9. It never fails to amuse me

what kind of information gets glossed over.

I thought this was common knowledge -- that it was a big deal when Clinton proposed it and it's still a big deal now.

*sigh*

S'okay, though... nothing important... just the further corruption of the political process.

[Nederland]

11. It wasn't glossed over

The original poster was mistaken about the law.

[Nederland]

10. I think you are confused

Soft money was made illegal by the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law. Some people argued that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional because it violated the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court ruling you referred to merely declared that those people were mistaken and that the law was in fact Constitutional. Therefore, under Clinton, soft money was perfectly legal and Constitutional. What changed that was a Congressional law, not any part of the Constitution.

[mzmolly]

4. But isn't Ralphie above all this?!

:shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

5. Your spouting Ralph Nader is terrific, mzmolly!

Thanks for sharing!

[mzmolly]

8. My pleasure.

Feel free to add it to your sigline. I took it from political humor, I'm sure they don't mind. :hi: