This evening I was privileged to attend a small, but extremely engaging and inspiring forum hosted by Suffolk University Law School’s Civil Rights Project. The topic was voting rights, and the future of campaign finance.
Some of the ideas put forward were fantastic. The evening began with Georgia State Rep. Alisha Morgan (http://www.alishamorgan.com) discussing the oppressive and unconstitutional statutes passed by the Georgia legislature, attempting to restrict citizens’ rights to vote in state and national elections. Various issues were raised such as poll taxes, discriminatory practices etc. She was inspiring, passionate, and very moving.
Next up was a panel with, you guessed it, Secretary of State candidate and founder of the National Voting Rights Institute, John Bonifaz. I have one word to say: IMPRESSIVE. Not only is he passionate and genuinely driven to achieving publicly funded campaign finance, but also supports fusion voting. The ideas were very innovative and bold.
When I had an opportunity to ask him what the single biggest obstacle to publicly funded campaign finance was, he replied “deeply entrenched politicians who are afraid of more equal footed elections.” Needless to say, Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of races run in opposition in the ENTIRE COUNTRY. People are scared to run against incumbents because of how entrenched our pols are here.
So, how about publicly funded campaign finance? How about fusion voting? It’s possible…difficult, but possible.
John Bonifaz really struck me tonight. Good man with great vision, and passion for what he does. Inspiring.
Bonifaz needs to answer one question for me to consider him as a Democrat…
<
p>
Why did he campaign for Ralph Nader in 2000?
<
p>
For me, any person who did that loses any right to run as a Democrat in any election. EVER.
<
p>
For the same reason that we aren’t happy with Dems who endorse or support Republicans, we should be unhappy with Democrats who endorse or support other parties.
<
p>
Want to support other parties? Great. Just don’t try to be a Democrat and do it.
<
p>
…oh and have you considered that part of the reason people might not run for office is pay?
<
p>
The pay for a State Rep or State Senator is around 52k. So is the pay for a 35 hr a week paralegal job. Better benefits and job stability too, with the paralegal job.
<
p>
People aren’t scared because the politicians are entrenched… people aren’t challenged because with all the crap that elected officials have to go through, no one wants their job…
<
p>
…just another member of the reality-based community…
So he supported Nader in 2000 — big deal — can you really blame anyone for not wanting to vote for Lieberman? I think we should be encouraging any progressive flirting with a third party — either as a candidate or a voter — to run and vote as a Democrat. Progressives have understandably gotten frustrated with the Democratic Party in recent years. We should be thankful that Bonifaz is running in as a Democrat, trying to reform the party from within instead of running as a third party candidate. Let’s welcome as many progressives as possible into the fold.
Lieberman in 2000 was different from the Bush loving Lieberman we have today.
<
p>
However, Lieberman wasn’t running for President. Gore was. Those who supported Nader helped perpetuate the myth, in 2000, that Democrats and Republicans are slightly different shades of the same color. Hopefully, the last six years have cured people of that idea.
<
p>
However, lets not pretend that someone who was so unhappy with all of us Democrats that six years ago he helped put Bush in the White House, and comes to without an apology for his actions, deserves any Democratic votes.
<
p>
I don’t like Galvin. That doesn’t mean I’m giving my vote to a traitor who decided that this year the politically convenient thing to do is run as a Democrat.
<
p>
Why are you so afraid of a third party? There are no Republicans who’ve filed for SecState. You’re telling me that Bonifaz has a better shot in the primary against Galvin than in the general?
<
p>
Bonifaz will be LUCKY if he can get 15% at the convention to even make the primary ballot.
<
p>
None of these things alter the fact that six years ago he was more than willing to sell out progressives just so that he could help the protest movement that obfuscated the issues and brought us George W. Bush.
<
p>
Actions speak louder than words.
Hmm…that sounds MIGHTY familiar. I guess since John Bonifaz supported a third party candidate he MUST be an enemy of the Democrats. It’s obvious he supported Nader NOT because it’s what he believed in, and NOT because it’s what his conscience was telling him, but because he wanted Bush in the White House. That’s definitely it. He’s a traitor! He’s not a progressive…because he questioned the two party system and voted for a third party candidate. Wait a minute, that makes him more progressive than 99% of Democrats!!!! Oh, the confusion and inconsistency you perpetuate.
<
p>
I have so much more to say on that, but I need to go to work. Reading your comment, polk, was not a good way to start my day though. Awfully obtuse, angry and exclusionary.
Memory is a funny thing sometimes.
<
p>
I remember the Nader of 2000 running and saying that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, that they were the same thing. That Nader helped bring about Bush, and if you helped him, and are proud of it, great. But you’re not a Democrat. You’re a dedicated progressive. Good for you. I’m thankful to you every time I fill up my car with three dollar gasoline from that oh-so-righteous war we’re fighting in the Middle East because of your dedicated progressiveness. Thanks a bunch!
<
p>
In all seriousness, I do not begrudge a progressive who allies sometimes with Democrats, sometimes with Greens. That’s fine. But I’m not a member of the Progressive party. I’m a Democrat. And with that, comes loyalty. You want my vote? In the Democratic Primary? That means you have to be a Democrat too. If you don’t want me to judge you on party loyalty, then don’t run as a Democrat. Run as an independent. Run as a Green. I’ll take you on your merits. But don’t come to my party crying to be accepted after stabbing me in the back. You’re not welcome.
<
p>
He supported a third party candidate? Against a Democrat? YES, THAT MAKES HIM AN ENEMY OF THE DEMOCRATS!!!! It doesn’t make him a bad person, or a bad progressive. Democrats are a political party. In winner takes all elections, like we have, if you’re not voting for Dems, you’re voting against Dems. If you have a problem with that, support IRV. But until it changes, someone who supports a third party is the enemy of the Democrats. That’s it, plain and simple.
<
p>
Answer for me a question. If Bonifaz helped Nader because he’s a progressive with a conscience, why has he NEVER mentioned this on the campaign trail? Conscience getting in the way of politics?
<
p>
If Bonifaz is a progressive, why not just run as an independent? Why not run as a Green? If it wasn’t a problem for his buddy Ralph Nader, why should it be a problem for him?
<
p>
You can’t answer my questions. But I’ll stay hopeful that you might try.
Want to support other parties? Great. Just don’t try to be a Democrat and do it.
<
p>
I guess I’m not a Democrat, because I supported Nader in 2000 too. I actually did a lot more than John Bonifaz, in that I lent telephones to the MA Green office, and I registered voters for the Green party. All he did was vote for Nader. (People sometimes mention that he attended a Nader organizing event, but he was actually there to try to convince Nader to change the focus of his campaign, which Nader declined to do)
<
p>
In my view, I’m far more of a Democrat than anyone who holds the views you express here, which I find offensive, repugnant and anti-Democratic.
<
p>
But in your view, I’m a traitor, because I actually campaigned for Nader in 2000 (something John Bonifaz did not do). So I guess I shouldn’t bother reading your comments anymore, eh? Thanks for the clarification.
Don’t confuse being a traitor to the Democratic Party with being a bad person. I don’t.
<
p>
I’m going to say this again. If you support a third party against the Democrats, you are a traitor to the Democratic party. Our elections are winner takes all. This isn’t Europe where all the liberal parties get together and make grand coalitions. Our coalition is inside the party, not outside of it.
<
p>
If you support a third party against the Democrat, you are not a Democrat. You may be a progressive. You may be a Green. You can be whatever you want. But when you support non-Democrats against Democrats, you are a traitor. Cos, you are not nearly as Democratic as me. To be that way, you need loyalty. If you don’t have that, you’re just a progressive. But you’re not a Democrat.
<
p>
Is that clear?
<
p>
My views are neither anti-Democratic, nor are they anti-democratic. Parties require loyalty to themselves and to their ideas. That’s why we have a party platform and why we run a coordinated campaign. That’s the reality of winner takes all elections as they are held in this country.
<
p>
If you want it to be different, work on it. Work on IRV, so that third parties might have a shot. I like the idea of IRV. I think it would do wonders to help us establish the kind of progressive majority government this nation needs, deserves, and desires.
<
p>
BTW: if you want to ignore my comments and posts because I disagree with you, or consider you a traitor to my party, you’re no better than the Republican dittoheads who can’t accept facts that challenge their opinions. Real progressives don’t back down from an argument. And they come armed with facts. Of course, if you’re not interested in talking to anyone who disagrees with you, I’m sure there’s a cozy cafe in Cambridge waiting for you. Just don’t leave it. Outside world’s a scary place.
Cos, you are not nearly as Democratic as me. To be that way, you need loyalty.
<
p>
Well, as I said before, thanks for the clarity. We can’t have a meaningful conversation so there’s no point in engaging any of the rest of what you say. I’ll just leave it at this: I wish nobody held this loathsome, offensive opinion of yours, but unfortunately, there are a lot of “party loyalty” types in the party who think the way you do. Part of my mission is to get rid of your influence, completely, from the party. Without that kind of thinking, we’ll have a better and stronger party.
<
p>
As a Democrat, I don’t see Greens or Libertarians as my “enemies” nearly as much as people who think like you. You are, politically, my enemy. Let us work hard for our candidates and our organizations, fight it out at the ballot box, and see who prevails. Good luck.
Lets compare this to a similar sentiment.
<
p>
“I only cheated on my wife once. I’m not a cheater, I’ve always been loyal to her in the past. The woman I cheated with is better looking than my wife, and I was more attacted to her. But I returned to my wife, so she should welcome me back.”
<
p>
You worked for Nader. You cheated on the Democratic Party. You didn’t try to improve it from within. You don’t apologize for your past actions. You want to be a cheater instead of a traitor? Fine.
<
p>
You’re not a Democrat. Not like me. A party demands loyalty. It’s like a marriage. You don’t step out for a quickie and come right back.
<
p>
You can be a progressive. I’ll work with you to move this party there, because I’m a progressive too. But I don’t cheat on my party for someone who’s more progressive. I work within my party to move it left.
<
p>
Has cheating ever improved a marriage?
<
p>
Traitor is as traitor does.
Okay, I said we couldn’t have a productive conversation on this subject already, and this further demonstrates that, because I think your analogy is ridiculous from my point of view… but I just have to answer your question, because it’s so funny!
<
p>
I’m not married. I’m polyamorous. I’ve had sex with married people, and on a couple of occasions seriously dated married people. I wouldn’t call it “cheating”, but yes, I’ve seen it improve a number of marriages (and have no big net positive or net negative effect on a number of others). In fact, right at this very moment I’m hanging out with a married couple whose girlfriend lives with them.
<
p>
None of this really has any bearing on party politics or party loyalty. None of us ever got “married” to the Democratic party, and certainly no sane progressive would claim that even married people are disloyal to their spouse if they had another lover before their marriage. My opinion is shifting gradually from thinking your view on this topic is offensive, to just thinking it’s nuts. Either way, though, thanks for the laugh!
…because I certainly am.
<
p>
If you’re going to say that cheating on your husband/wife, or a married couple living with their girlfriend, that’s the normal course of events, then you’re 100% right. We can’t argue because we come from completely separate and non-intersecting worlds.
<
p>
However, in the, ahem, real world, where cheating on your spouse is considered bad, cheating is bad. You know, the real world – that place outside of Cambridge city limits.
<
p>
But back to the topic at hand … if you were a Green, or still are, and want to join hands with the Democrats to work together, or join the Democratic Party, that’s great. You may be betraying the Greens, but so it goes.
<
p>
That’s not what Bonifaz is saying. He says he’s always been a proud Democrat (big D, like a member of the Democratic party, as opposed to little d, as in, a person who feels connected to democratic ideas).
<
p>
Someone who has always been a proud Democrat, and yet cheated on (betrayed) the Democratic party by supporting a Green (or a Republican), is a traitor and someone who does not deserve the nomination of the Democratic Party.
<
p>
How are Bonifaz’s actions in 2000 different from those of Zell Miller in 2004?
As a rule, I would tend to agree more with Greg and Caro24. Even though I think anybody who supported Nader in 2000 was not only foolish, but also contributed to Gore losing the election, I am usually happy to welcome such progressives back into the fold. The Democratic Party is not in a position these days to be turning progressive activists away at the door. Bravo to Greg and Caro24 for being so inclusive.
<
p>
That being said, when it comes to John Bonifaz, I agree with Polk on this one. Bonifaz didn’t just support Nader in 2000, he also took out papers as an Independent to run against John Kerry for his senate seat in 2002 (if I remember correctly, he then dropped out shortly after 9/11). Although this shouldn’t end the discussion, it does make me begin to doubt whether Bonifaz is a Democrat or or just some guy who’s wearing that label because he wants to get elected in MA. I am always happy to have 3rd party candidates involved in an election, but if John Bonifaz wants to get the nomination of the Democratic Party and its voters (not some third party), I think he should explain to us why he worked against (and briefly ran against) Democrats twice in the past six years. I wouldn’t close my ears to what he has to say, I just think we should get an explanation.
I’ll heartily welcome back anyone who wishes to admit their mistakes/flirtations with third parties, etc.
<
p>
Bonifaz doesn’t event want to admit he supported Nader. That says he’s embarassed or ashamed of it, but doesn’t want to apologize? Bleh. Gutless.
<
p>
I’m with you on the other thing too… if he’s proud of his work, he should run as a Green or an Independent … he’d probably have more of a shot that way, rather than coming back to the Democratic Party and asking for our help.
Does anyone think that the Republicans would be having this kind of debate about Christy Mihos were he to suddenly change his mind and want to run in the Republican primary against Kerry Healy? Granted, the dynamics and particulars of that situation are different from the Bonifaz situation, but the point is that Republicans generally do not care about the previous partisan affiliation of someone who wants to switch sides.
<
p>
And doesnât the above debate underscore the point that Bonifaz makes about unopposed races? Itâs not just the campaign finance status quo that acts as an obstacle to those who might otherwise run for office. The Democratic circular firing squad is pretty potent in that regard as well.
<
p>
The real question regarding Bonifaz is whether or not he has principles and intelligence. I do not know enough about him to offer an opinion.
<
p>
So, how about some discussion on the merits of fusion voting?
Fusing voting has done some really good things in New York, and that’s why people are taking it up here in MA.
<
p>
But there’s a key difference between the two states: New York has an active two-party contest for the major statewide offices and the legislature, and they have partisan municipal elections. In Massachusetts, except for the Governor, most of our real contests, the ones that matter and change the course of government, are Democratic primaries and nonpartisan municipal races.
<
p>
Fusion voting only comes into play when there are party labels on the ballot, and you can add more party labels. You can’t do that in a primary, where all candidates are running under the same part, and you can’t do it in a nonpartisan municipal election, where there are no party labels on the ballot at all. Third parties are free to endorse any candidate they want for office, so they can simulate “fusion voting” by endorsing a candidate for mayor, or endorsing one of the 4 Democrats in a state rep primary. But putting fusion voting on the books would have no bearing on these elections at all.
<
p>
I don’t mean to oppose fusion voting. I think it’s a good idea and I favor it. But I don’t see it as something that matters to Massachusetts, at least not for the forseeable future. I don’t think it’s worth our time and effort. Instead, I think we should put our energy towards instant runoff voting, another simple reform that would have a profound impact on many of those primaries and nonpartisan races that matter most here. That is something I think we need in Massachusetts as soon as possible.
I don’t know enough about Bonifaz, but election reform issues are ones that don’t get talked about much and I’m greatful that he’s bringing them into the discussion. Public financing would be hard but doable, and while I haven’t clicked on the link yet, so I’m not sure what fusion voting is, I do think we should be exploring potential solutions like instant-runoff voting — if we had IRV, the whole problem of supporting third-party progressives leading to GOP victories would go away. I also don’t hold the 2000 Nader vote against him, although if he voted for Nader in 2004 after four years of GWB, that would be a problem.
<
p>
Incidentally, I do agree with Polk that one reason people don’t run for office is that state offices (the legislature in particular) are not particularly lucrative occupations.
I do agree with Polk that one reason people don’t run for office is that state offices (the legislature in particular) are not particularly lucrative occupations.
<
p>
Ahh, that’s the crux – we think of candidates as rich people who would be taking a pay cut with public office. One of our biggest problems is that there are a huge number of people for home that level of pay would be a big step up, but these people can’t run for office exactly because they neither have money nor friends with money. That’s a problem public financing would solve.
I do like the idea of public financing, but I’m still unclear as how it works to bring people with lower incomes into the fray. Just because a lower income candidate can have the funding to run a campaign does not mean that higher paid candidates won’t still win out. I find it likely that higher paid corporate executives will argue successfully they have real experience that their lower income counterparts do not.
<
p>
And I’m not entirely convinced that lower income candidates can’t join the fray. Tom Reilly reportedly has the lowest personal wealth in the Democratic field right now, and yet he has the highest amount of money in his coffers.
“And I’m not entirely convinced that lower income candidates can’t join the fray. Tom Reilly reportedly has the lowest personal wealth in the Democratic field right now, and yet he has the highest amount of money in his coffers.”
<
p>
Tom Reilly may be the poorest person in the current field of gubernatorial candidates. But we’re talking about the guy who paid 30,000 in income taxes last year on income of way over 100k. If he’s the LOWER income candidate (and he is), then we’re making the argument that a Mercedes driver is clearly a poor man because he can’t compete with the guy driving a Rolls-Royce.
<
p>
When I speak of lower income, I mean the kind of person who makes’s the state’s median income … around 50k.
<
p>
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/statemhi.html
<
p>
That person would make about the same amount as an elected State Rep or State Senator, but why would they do it?
<
p>
I’ll challenge you all on this…
<
p>
Prove to me that of the 160 State House districts in our fair commonwealth, at least half can be reasonably inhabited by a median income earner in a home that they own.
<
p>
The reality is that outside of the cities where it’s politically acceptable to rent instead of buy, the average person is either taking a huge pay cut to run for office, or is priced out of the community they want to represent.
<
p>
In fact, find me 5 districts in Metrowest where a median income earner can purchase their own place. You won’t be able to. The places just don’t exist.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income04/statemhi.html
<
p>
Mass Median income is slightly over 50K. There is not a huge number of people for whom 50k is a big step up. Most of the people for whom it would be … live in cheaper areas … and simply by virtue of geography, can’t run seats outside their own district.
Don’t you realize districts are drawn by population, not geography? Places where there are more people, have more districts (covering a smaller area each).
<
p>
Yes, there are a huge number of people who don’t run because of the need for fundraising – because they don’t have a lot of money and don’t know many people who have a lot of money – who would run if we had public financing.
But re-reading my post I wasn’t clear enough.
<
p>
If you look at urban rep/senate districts, you see plenty of competition for every elected office, from the metaphorical dog catcher on up.
<
p>
But if you look at huge swaths of suburbia, there is simply much less competition. For every office from down low to up high. And that’s because of pay, among other reasons. All those suburban districts with good schools and expensive homes, all of MetroWest basically, in most of those districts you simply can’t afford to live on 50k. You won’t find a place to live.
but also my district (Fourth Essex for State Rep.) and I would imagine parts of the South Shore (like Duxbury) as well.
Now I get it. It’s not about winning. It’s about political purity. Under the COS manifesto, the Democratic Party should kick out anyone who is not a left wing progressive. Polk – you want to capture a majority and actually win an election. You clearly have no principles and should be broomed from the party. Progressives like you and I should become unenrolled or Republicans – because we all know there is no differences between the parties. Gore, Bush, Kerry – didn’t matter. Cheney, Lieberman, John Edwards – same difference.
<
p>
Many questions still awaiting answers on the Bonifaz front – positions on SOS issues other than elections, favor/oppose tax rollback to 5%, support Democratic nominees?