Ralph Nader on Government Reform 2008 Independent for for President; 2004 Reform nominee; 2000 Green nominee

Sub-sections under Government Reform:
• Campaign Finance Reform
• Citizen Empowerment
• Legal Reform
• Voting Reform
• Other issues under Government Reform

I believe in strong regulatory agencies

$13M for “educational” party conventions wastes tax dollars

Thwarting a possible terrorist attack was one reason for over tens of millions of dollars spent-the other objective was to keep the people from protesting anywhere near the Fleet Center Convention. The people-voters, taxpayers, workers-were detained in a “free speech zone” (catch the irony) that looked like an ad hoc concentration camp encirclement. The Democratic Party did what it does so regularly in Washington-it shut out the people who resigned themselves to social justice gatherings elsewhere in Boston.

The two parties are proxies for corporate government

Lack of election opponents let corrupt pols stay in office

Like most congressional districts, DeLay’s is one-party dominated, and he wins by large majorities with only nominal opposition. This is typical. In about 90 percent of the 435 congressional districts, there is one-party rule. So choice is effectively denied to a vast majority of voters.

National Youth Convention bypasses electoral fluff and bluff

Our interaction was one of the most stimulating exchanges in the campaign. I was pleased to hear young people in their teens and early twenties articulating a political agenda separate from the tactics, fund-raisers and fluff and bluff surrounding the major-party candidates.

These Youth convocations were intricately planned and promoted. They were supported by major foundations, such as the Pew Charitable Trusts, and major nonprofits, including the League of Women Voters and the YMCA and YWCA. These conventions give young men and women a voice and involvement, when so often they are alienated from presidential campaigns that ignore their existence, except for the occasional scripted photo op.

Opposes Green Party plank to abolish the Senate

Concentrated party power weakens democracy

Ken Starr had conflict on partiality, and corporate ties

But as disturbing as these potential conflicts seemed--Starr the conservative beacon versus Starr the impartial prosecutor--they were probably not as troublesome as a second set of conflicts: Starr the prosecutor versus Starr the corporate power lawyer. Starr earned $1.1 million from his la firm in 1994, even though he served as independent counsel for five months of that year. Far from reducing his private practice options, Starr became an increasingly attractive magnet for big corporate clients as his Whitewater investigation grew.

Focus on anti-trust enforcement to help small business

A: I’d emphasize the word justice. Special influences distort the mission of the department. Its priorities are not in the area of corporate crime, fraud and abuse. I would emphasize anti-trust enforcement. Pro-competitive policies are essential for small business innovators and entrepreneurs to have a fair shake at becoming significant factors of production in our country.

Government delivers more service than people realize

A: Yes, because people would realize how much flows in terms of economic activity, technological research, health care research, health care delivery, management of the parks and the forests, construction. They would realize just how much they were getting from the government. Not to mention a lot of these new technologies, like telecommunications, satellites, all came out of the Defense Department and the space program in terms of the basic research, development and engineering stages. When the government isn’t perceived as delivering, the demand is to cut back and strip government of its capability to deliver, instead of rising up and making government deliver.

Give voters more voices and choices

A: It’s really too early to say. I don’t like long campaigns. But I’m committed to trying to give more voices and choices to the American people on the ballot. That means more third parties, independent candidates and to break up this two-party elected dictatorship that is becoming more and more like a dial for the same corporate dollars.

Q: As you know, by leaving the door open as you just did, a lot of Democrats are going to get very, very nervous, given what happened in 2000. But you are potentially open to running for president again?

A: As I say, I’ll consider it later in the year. But I think they ought to look at the agenda of some of these third parties like the Green Party, like our independent run in ‘04. Maybe if they take some of these issues, as they should have, in ‘00 and ‘04, they might win in a bigger way over the Republican Party.

No PAC money, no commercial donations; only individuals

Public funding of campaigns would fight corporate control

Great solutions do not move into the electoral, political and governmental arenas. That’s the problem of two indentured parties to corporate control.

Clean money means clean elections

It's way past time for a shift of power today from big business to the people. Power is the central contention of politics.

Just think about it: you go down to vote, you expect it to count, and the votes are cut off at the pass by fundraising dinners where fat cats pay off politicians for present and future favors and the politicians shake down the fat cats in a kind of combined symbiosis of legalized bribery and legalized extortion.

Dems & GOP say they want campaign reform, but do nothing

There are two lessons to learn from these [Democratic and Republican] political conventions. One is that our nation’s political leaders are chosen by one big entertainment extravaganza. Voters are left with only limp imagery, hackneyed slogans, and the omnipresent thirty-second propaganda advertisement. Dr. Pavlov soon becomes the patron saint of the political horse race.

Green Party does not take PAC, soft, or corporate cash

No private money in public campaigns

A: If you get over 5% of the vote, and you get funds for the next four years, you should be qualified to get on the debate. So we believe in a 5% threshold.

Q: Even if it was a hate-mongering organization?

A: Yes of course. I don’t think that kind of organization would ever get 5% or higher.

Q: Why does it help you?

A: It doesn’t. It pushes the whole movement toward public financing for public campaigns. We want no private money in public campaigns.

Spending campaign money is not free speech

Public campaign finance; 12-year term limits

Public election financing, with free TV & radio time

100% publicly funded campaigns, by $100 tax checkoff

A: A major strengthening of our democracy. Getting private money out of public campaigns, by well-promoted, voluntary checkoff on the 1040 tax return, up to 100 dollars per person.

Q: No contributions?

A: If you go and use that as a candidate, you can’t take private money.

Q: You have to go to the Supreme Court to do that.

A: Yes, you have to change the Constitution.

Big problem in politics is excessive concentration of power

Government become unresponsive to citizen groups in 1979

A: No. My concern doesn’t proceed from that. I came to Washington over 40 years ago to help improve my country and, and started a lot of citizen groups who did that. That was a time you had a hearing in Congress, regulatory agencies would be more responsive. Around 1979, the doors started closing on the citizen groups. So my concern comes from, to give you statistics quickly, 58,000 workers who die every year from work-related diseases & traume; 65,000 people who die from air pollution; and all the fraud, waste and abuse that’s eating at the heart of the family budget

Civic engagement fights corporate-government fascism

In our country there is a gap that needs to be closed: the democracy gap. It is often said that “power abhors a vacuum. ” When people do not claim power, the greedy step in to fill the void. Every day that capable citizens abstain from civic engagement allows our society and world to tolerate harm and to decay incrementally. The converse is also true. Our efforts, small and large, daily and cumulatively, spread the more noble sentiments of our humanity toward one another. But it isn’t happening nearly enough to stem the downward slide of justice in our society.

That in its essence is fascism: ownership of the government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power. We would do well to heed this age-old wisdom as we ponder why our corporate and political leaders assume more and more control over our lives and futures.

Democracy gap: people must claim power, or the greedy will

Giving information to people overcomes propaganda

Change requires a critical mass of the involved

Non-violent demonstrations are ignored by the press

Consequently, demonstrators began to figure that nonviolent civil disobedience or, in some frustrated instances, controlled violence against property, would mesh with the television media’s mantra, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Studious, well-prepared news conferences, absent these demonstrations, don’t make the grade with the eyes and ears of the press. The reaction of course is for the police to organize massive counterforce against what is perceived as a giant safety problem

Primary architect of Freedom of Information Act

Citizens should shape elections, not just spectate and vote

It did not work. Voters were expected to be polled, to be spectators and to vote. Their participation in the whole election process as an active civic force shaping the substance and tone of the campaign--why, that wasn't the way it was done.

During the 80s, it became ever more clear that the Democrats were losing the will to fight. Business money pouring into party coffers melded into the retreat from progressive roots and then into an electoral tactic that argued for defeating Republicans by taking away their issues and becoming more like them.

Empower citizens via accurate information from govt

Reinvent democracy via new tools for citizen empowerment

Secret lawsuit settlements deprive public of power to decide

Such practices exact a heavy toll. Secrecy deprives people of the power to decide. In order for people to make informed decisions about how they will conduct their lives, about which products to purchase and which to avoid, about which companies to patronize, and the like, they need to assess information.

"Without information, the public is powerless to act. With information, the public can act to make sure the illegal conduct ceases, that victims are fairly compensated, that problems are appropriately resolved, and that future injuries are prevented." The justice system is a public institution funded by taxpayers, and secrecy inhibits its proper working.

FEC regulations prevent 3rd-party campaigns

Can someone voluntarily drive the candidate to and from events without converting it into a dollar contribution for gasoline and mileage expenses? Do we have to put "Paid for by the Nader 2000 election committee" on our buttons? Answer: No, there is a de minimus rule for items that are too small.

If you are finding the above listing tedious, try studying the guidelines and then transferring them into operation among the headquarters staff, field people, and everyone else they have to guide. Full public financing of public elections would remove the vast number of regulations. The FEC thicket has become another barrier to entry by small parties that simply cannot afford the cost of clearing a path toward fund-raising.

Supreme Court nominees should have a sense of justice

A: Well, a certain level of intellectual power, a sense of justice, as demonstrated by the record of the potential nominee. How has the person used his or her time as an attorney in advancing justice in society? And a sense of judicial impartiality.

My litmus paper test is: Does the judge allow a fair hearing for all sides to the litigation? That’s the key because impartiality means you keep an open mind.

Justices need sense of justice & sense of history

A: [An appointee] should have a “judicial temperament” [as exhibited by]:
• A sense of justice, which is essential in order to have a proper sense of when there’s injustice; and
• A sense of history.

Supplement Legal Services Corporation with free lawyer work

Tighten ethics rules on lawyers, to judge cases on merits

• Judges Must Get Tough: Obstructionist tactics will not disappear unless more judges begin entering default judgments for discovery abuse.
• The Rules Must be Tightened:Change court rules to strengthen and clarify the obligations of parties and their lawyers.
• Ethics Boards Must Act:States must be equipped to investigate lawyer misconduct and prepared to suspend or disbar those found to have violated state codes of legal ethics.

For fair ballot access and fair debate access

A: Ralph Nader supports Instant Runoff Voting and Public Financing. He also calls for these electoral reforms:

• DC Statehood
• Fair ballot access through reasonable federal standards.
• Verified voting--end paperless electronic voting and require a voter verified paper ballot trail for random audits and independent recounts to ensure accurate vote counts
• Debates open to all ballot qualified candidates.

Instant Runoff Voting makes all votes count

A: That’s what are needed to make the votes count. We have a winner-take-all system where if you’re part of the 49% your votes doesn’t count. Western Europe and others have come up proportional rep & IRV, and that’s something we have to discuss. Could you imagine any of the major party candidates being asked, “What do you think about IRV?” You can’t explain IRV in a sound byte, so it won’t even get on the air.

Taking away votes from Democrats gains leverage

NADER: I would abolish the Electoral College. For the US government to lecture people overseas about democracy and then turn around and say the man who got the lesser number of votes becomes president in 2000, and the person, Gore, who got more votes, is a rather difficult position to uphold. It’s also important to recognize, it’s the only way third parties have had leverage over the major party candidates is to deny them votes, is to say to them that for too long, they have ignored the needs of the American people. They’ve had their chance.

Advocate to allow people to vote “no confidence”

DEAN: That is exactly the difference between the two of us. We live in a real world. We have to make real choices. Binding “none of the above” means we don’t have to make real choices.

Denying D.C. vote is colonial mentality by congress

The hallway outside the arena were filled with activists [who] advanced D.C. statehood, living wage, healthcare, eliminating child poverty, an end to the death penalty, revoking the cruel life-destroying sanctions on the innocent Iraqi people, protecting the global environment, free Tibet, and sustainable self-sufficient economies. The turnout, estimated at 10,000, was gratifying.

Government obstacles to voting make our elections oppressive

The test of any democracy is whether after a national trauma significant reform follows. From obstacles to registration to incomplete or erroneous voting lists (note the miscues regarding ex-felons in Florida), to machine errors, to confusing ballot designs, to poorly publicized changes of precinct locations, and on and on, millions of voters are not having their votes counted or counted accurately.

Increase voting by weekend and holiday Election Days

Going back to the days of the Congress Project, Nader had been an advocate of campaign finance reform. He favored public financing of elections by means of a nominal checkoff ($3 or so) on individual tax returns.

Binding "None Of The Above" disqualifies election if it wins

Ballot access restrictions set up as barriers to 3rd parties

Paid signature gatherers can become very expensive, as Pat Buchanan found out: more than $200,000 just to get him on the NC ballot. In WV & GA, the filing fee is $4,000. PA stipulates that signature forms have to be on special colored paper. Officials would provide only 400 forms when our volunteers needed more than 2,000. Downloading the forms from the Internet was prohibited.

I wrote my first article on ballot access barriers in 1959. And matters have in many states only gotten more burdensome. For decades, third parties have had to spend time and money confronting ballot barriers. We did not get on the ballot in 7 states.

Allow voting for “None of the Above”