Press Release: Free and Equal Issues Statement in Response to Recent Texas Media Reports

Sent to contact.ipr@gmail.com by Free and Equal:

Free and Equal Free and Equal Elections is proud to stand next to the Green Party of Texas today to release this joint statement concerning Texas media reports involving Boyd Ritchie’s anti-democratic attack on the Green Party’s recent petition drive in Texas.

The statement from Free and Equal Founder and Chair Christina Tobin follows:

“Boyd Ritchie’s anti-democratic and anti-choice actions are shameful for a party leader. Free and Equal is a non-partisan organization that helps all parties, and Ritchie appears to have gone hysterical because a Green got on the Texas ballot this week. Ballot access and campaign finance are two completely different things. Ritchie is acting like a hot-headed party boss, not a party leader who deserves respect.”

“In Ritchie’s attempt to inflict harm on the Green Party, he will also harm voters by reducing their choices on Election Day. It’s a shame he would go to such lengths to keep a candidate from running, just because they aren’t a member of his party.”

“Ritchie wants to keep competition off the ballots and to thwart the Green Party’s participation in the electoral process. He is also trying to slam the door on voters’ choices when voters demand them via their participation in petitioning. These anti-democratic tactics by Ritchie are meant to cost the Green Party money, time, resources and donations in an effort to gain some media attention for himself.”

“Hampering political participation for the Green Party is wrong, and Free and Equal will do everything in its power to help the Green Party of Texas.”

kat swift, Statewide Coordinator of the Green Party of Texas commented:

“93,000 Texas voters legitimately expressed their wish to have the Green Party on the ballot, and we intend to make every legitimate effort to avoid disappointing them.”

“Ritchie has been making incendiary statements in the media and robocalls around the state based on unsubstantiated conjecture. We do not now nor have we ever had any intention of acting in violation of the Texas Ethics Commission rules, which we lobbied for and helped establish.”

“Their further allegation that we are controlled by the Republican Party is as ridiculous as asserting that Democratic candidates who regularly accept campaign contributions from Republicans are in fact controlled by the Republican Party.”

“Clearly, the Texas Democratic Party does not really want fair elections. Their leadership is content with rigged election systems and double standards regarding campaign contributions. The Republican Party is no different in these regards.”

30 thoughts on “Press Release: Free and Equal Issues Statement in Response to Recent Texas Media Reports

  1. Trent Hill

    It doesn’t seem like they actually addressed the situation. They just threw around a lot of insults. A Major Republican donor gave the GP tens of thousands of dollars for the ballot-access effort. I don’t think that should matter from a legal standpoint, but it certainly does look unethical on the part of both the GOP and the GP in Texas to voters.

  2. Trent Hill

    I’m curious about something else. They seem to sort of be blurring the lines between the Free and Equal Foundation and Free and Equal Inc, the professional petitioning company. Both are run by the same people, they both seem to have the same office, and now the foundation is issuing press releases which defend the work of the business.

    They may run into the same problem the Working Families Party and their professional arm ran into—blurring legal lines.

  3. Steven R Linnabary

    Looks to me like the democrats are “Green” with envy. Envious of the money they think should be going to them, as they are quite used to having many of the same special interest contributions that fund republicans.

    I wouldn’t bat an eye if a democrat or even if a republican gave money to a Libertarian. Why should it be any different when the Green Party might possibly have gotten a fraction of the money that is traditionally given democrats?

    If democrats are truly incensed that the Green Party has theoretically received money from certain special interests, they should tear down the walls, the barriers that have kept democracy from flourishing in Texas.

    PEACE

  4. JeffTrigg

    Trent Hill, are you some kind of a genius legal expert in the fields of election, campaign finance, corporate, and non-profit law?

    Can you identify the exact legal lines that in your expert opinion are being blurred?

    Are you really that narrow-minded that you are unaware that there are thousands and thousands of corporations with foundations? Here’s a list of the top 50, maybe you’ve heard of them somewhere.

    http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top50giving.html

    JPMorgan, Wal-Mart, Ford, Johnson & Johnson, GE, 3M, ring a bell?

    Don’t play seems to me games, that is childish like 6th grade girls spreading rumors to smear someone they don’t like. Keep that up, and it will seem to others that you are just being a sexist taking every opportunity to bad mouth a successful woman because it seems like Trent Hill thinks women should be put in their place.

    See how that seems to me game works? And I’m a lot more credible about sexists than you are about the accusations you are throwing around without any substantiation or qualifications.

  5. Trent Hill

    “Why should it be any different when the Green Party might possibly have gotten a fraction of the money that is traditionally given democrats?”

    I definitely did not say that it should be illegal or anything for this GOP donor to give to the GP. However, it will look to the voters as if the GOP is funding a far left third party in order to cut into Democratic Party votes.
    I think the major difference is that the GOP is associated with Center-Right causes. If a GOP donor gives money to the LP or CP (which are traditionally seen as far right, rightly or wrongly), then it is perceived that he is simply donating to causes similar to the GOP. However, this donor is a GOP donor (and therefore, either moderate or center-right in the public’s mind) who has donated to the Green Party (a far left party, to be sure). This smells of shenanigans.

  6. Trent Hill

    “Trent Hill, are you some kind of a genius legal expert in the fields of election, campaign finance, corporate, and non-profit law?”

    I have no legal credentials except in the field of online defamation or online libel.

    “Can you identify the exact legal lines that in your expert opinion are being blurred?”

    This is clearly misdirection–no where did I claim to be an expert. I simply said that “they”, the staff at Free&Equal, appeared to be blurring the lines between the operations of the non-profit and the for-profit. I think that statement speaks for itself–the non-profit is, in this statement, defending the petitioning efforts of the for-profit arm. I’ve no idea if that is legal or illegal, but it could certainly get them in trouble if they blur that line too much, as in the case of the Working Families Party in NY, as I cited.

    “Are you really that narrow-minded that you are unaware that there are thousands and thousands of corporations with foundations?”

    Of course not–that in no way related to what I said. I have no problem with for-profits also having non-profits. It is the blurring of the lines between the two organizations that is troubling–for example, by having the non-profit issue a statement defending the work of the for-profit.
    But let me be clear, I’ve very little legal background and no expertise in this area whatsoever. My observation was a casual one.

    “Don’t play seems to me games, that is childish like 6th grade girls spreading rumors to smear someone they don’t like.”

    Am I not allowed, on my own blog, to state my opinion? That it SEEMS inappropriate for a non-profit to issue a statement defending a for-profit’s project? I think that is appropriate. I’m making no accusations, I’ve stated in the past that I think Free&Equal has done a decent job, though I prefer COFOE, Richard Winger’s organization.

    “Keep that up, and it will seem to others that you are just being a sexist taking every opportunity to bad mouth a successful woman because it seems like Trent Hill thinks women should be put in their place.”

    I literally have no idea what you’re talking about here. How was my statement sexist? I didn’t even mention any women, nor allude to any women. I spoke about an organization as a whole. My statement was made out of concern that another third party/ballot access group would get taken down for blurring those lines between non-profit and for-profit, as the Working Families Party did in NY.
    I hope I have clarified myself appropriately. And I hope that you consider what I’ve said and respond to it articulately instead of simply casting about insults–as the Free&Equal Press Release does and as your last comment does.

    As I tell so many of my libertarian friends, we are all on the same team here. Ballot Access reformers should stick together, even when we don’t like each other. My purpose in making that statement is not to insult Free&Equal, but to point out how I think it could be more successful.

  7. JeffTrigg

    So for the record, just so everyone knows, Trent Hill pulled these allegations out of his ass.

    “They seem to sort of be blurring the lines between the Free and Equal Foundation and Free and Equal Inc, the professional petitioning company.”

    Does Trent Hill cite evidence, or is he pulling this out of his ass?

    “I’ve no idea if that is legal or illegal, but it could certainly get them in trouble if they blur that line too much, as in the case of the Working Families Party in NY, as I cited.”

    If you have no idea what is legal or illegal, how do you know something is anywhere remotely similar to the Working Families Party in NY that you cite as evidence you have some idea as to where the line is on what is legal or not? If you don’t know where the line is, how can you assume it is going to get blurred too much?

    The Working Families Party is a political party and their “professional arm” was a campaign commmittee, if I remember correctly. So how in the world is a political party and a campaign committee anything like a corporation and corporate foundation, since you cite that example? Right, you have no idea, you just pulled the Working Families Party comparison out of your ass.

    So now that we know Trent has no expertise about any legal lines being blurred whatsoever and that he is pulling things out of his ass, what would motivate Trent to pull things out of his ass?

    I know you didn’t mention a woman or women anywhere, and that seems to me like a sure sign of the motivation behind you pulling accusations out of your ass. Sexists often hide their sexism through proxy fights, just like this one. Find something else they are involved in and use that to criticize them since you can’t bluntly be a sexist any more. The fact that you didn’t mention the woman is evidence of sexism, seems to me anyway in my opinion.

    “My purpose in making that statement is not to insult Free&Equal, but to point out how I think it could be more successful.”

    That is complete pc bullshit. Its a good thing you pull things out of your ass because it seems to be full of shit.

    “They may run into the same problem the Working Families Party and their professional arm ran into—blurring legal lines.”

    Which legal lines are being blurred? Specifically, tell us which ones, since you claim you made this statement in order to help, that information would be essential to know if you actually were trying to help. You can’t because you pulled it out of your ass seeing as it is a comparison with a political party and campaign committee versus a corporation and a corporate foundation. Why did you pull that out of your ass? To help them become more successful or to insult them?

    Those are baseless, irresponsible and unethical allegations and you know it. Sure, it may have been legal for you say that, but you pulled it out of your ass for the sole reason of making someone else look bad.

    Here’s some help for you Trent Hill. This was a completely baseless attack that makes you look like you have the same mentality as Archie Bunker, and I mean that to help.

    “I’m curious about something else. They seem to sort of be blurring the lines between the Free and Equal Foundation and Free and Equal Inc, the professional petitioning company. Both are run by the same people, they both seem to have the same office, and now the foundation is issuing press releases which defend the work of the business.

    They may run into the same problem the Working Families Party and their professional arm ran into—blurring legal lines.”

    Which lines are being blurred Trent? Do you have a responsible answer to that other than you don’t know what is legal or illegal? And if you don’t know what is legal or illegal, how in the world can you make such as allegation? Thousands and thounsands of corporations with corporate foundations that share an address and staff, Trent, so why do you mention that specifically when nowhere else is that a problem. Thousands of them. So why do you automatically assume this one is doing something wrong?

    I think it is obvious you have a bias against FreeandEqual, and it would be helpful to everyone in the movement if you could recognize your problem and get past it. You are obviously pulling things out of your ass here in an effort to make them look bad, so what is your motivation for doing that? I’m guessing some people might think it is because you are a sexist. So please explain to us why you pulled those baseless allegations out of your unqualified to legally comment on them ass?

    As for the press release, did you read the Democratic Party’s press release that this responded to? Obviously not, so another ignorant opinion.

  8. JeffTrigg

    I also should mention Trent Hill predicted the Proposition 14 final vote would be 64% Yes to 46% No, and he was making that prediction right at the same time Vote No groups were trying to get last push fundraising, enthusiasm, and media going. A lot of help that negative and completely wrong prediction pulled out of his ass was doing for the cause of ballot access.

    When the absentees and provisionals are counted, the final vote may very well be 53% to 47%. The Yes people won in the mail, but the No people won at ballot box, in spite of Trent Hill and his negativity. He’s not much of a political expert either judging by how far off his prediction was on Prop. 14.

  9. JeffTrigg

    And just in case people haven’t figured it out by now, yes, I pulled the Trent Hill is sexist allegations right out of my ass using as much basis as Trent did to make his allegations against FreeandEqual. And I’m honest and “man” enough to admit that. We’ll soon find out if Trent is honest enough to admit pulling allegations out of his ass to make someone else look bad.

  10. Trent Hill

    “Does Trent Hill cite evidence, or is he pulling this out of his ass?”

    I made the statement based on the fact that a non-profit put out a statement defending the petitioning of a for-profit. That is, indeed, blurring the legal distinctions between the two.

    “The Working Families Party is a political party and their “professional arm” was a campaign commmittee, if I remember correctly. So how in the world is a political party and a campaign committee anything like a corporation and corporate foundation, since you cite that example? Right, you have no idea, you just pulled the Working Families Party comparison out of your ass.”

    You don’t remember correctly. The “professional arm” of the Working Families Party is called Data and Field Services–and it is a for-profit company. They are in trouble because they, too, blurred the lines of distinction between non-profit and for-profit. This is a VERY germane example, I assure you.

    “I know you didn’t mention a woman or women anywhere, and that seems to me like a sure sign of the motivation behind you pulling accusations out of your ass. Sexists often hide their sexism through proxy fights, just like this one. Find something else they are involved in and use that to criticize them since you can’t bluntly be a sexist any more. The fact that you didn’t mention the woman is evidence of sexism, seems to me anyway in my opinion.”

    I could not be more confused by this statement. I haven’t mentioned a woman and I’m therefore sexist? Seems backwards to me. Just in case there is still any doubt–my wife makes more than me and I’m glad =)

    “That is complete pc bullshit. Its a good thing you pull things out of your ass because it seems to be full of shit.”

    Ohk, c’mon, we can maintain a level of decorum here can’t we? I’m more than willing to discuss this issue with you, but lets talk TO each other, rather than AT each other. There is no need for cussing at each other–that’s certainly not something I’m going to do to you. If it makes you feel better, if it is cathartic, go for it, but it doesn’t help us to communicate any better.
    As for your assertion above, that my statements were “utter pc bullshit”, I suppose you’re entitled to your opinion. I’m not really known for being “pc” around here or for hiding my bad feelings–I’m very forthright about any problems I have with any people. Certainly some of the staff at Free&Equal have stepped on my toes, and vice versa, (including one who publicly threatened to bring lawsuits against this blog) but I still consider them to be vital allies against Ballot Access Tyranny. Despite the personal failings that I think others have, and despite the failings I certainly have, my hope is that we could all still work together despite the differences. My comments, made above, were made out of concern that Free&Equal might get shut down by some Democratic operatives with too much money and a good team of lawyers–I think my comment accurately reflected that and in no way constituted an attack. If it was understood by others to be an attack, I’d like to publicly extend an apology and say: I like the work Free&Equal did against Prop 14. I also intend to make a post sometime in the coming week which will encourage my readers to donate money to COFOE (Richard Winger’s organization) and Free&Equal (assuming you get off my back about this, lol).

    “Which legal lines are being blurred? Specifically, tell us which ones, since you claim you made this statement in order to help, that information would be essential to know if you actually were trying to help.”

    Non-profits and for-profits have to be very careful to remain distinct from each other. Corporations are good at walking these lines because they have large teams of lawyers. I was, and am, worried that Free&Equal is not paying proper attention to that separation, but c’mon, this is not a visceral attack on them or anything. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I hope someone with some legal knowledge can tell me I’m off-base.

    “You can’t because you pulled it out of your ass seeing as it is a comparison with a political party and campaign committee versus a corporation and a corporate foundation. Why did you pull that out of your ass?”

    I didn’t, see above. The entities I was making a comparison to were a political party and a for-profit company. A very similar situation to Free&Equals. Although , I want to be VERY clear: Free&Equal is definitely not corrupt or anything, like the WFP.

    “Thousands and thounsands of corporations with corporate foundations that share an address and staff, Trent, so why do you mention that specifically when nowhere else is that a problem.”

    I’m aware. However, in regards to politics there are more stringent rules in place. And more specifically, my contention was not that the shared address and staff were a major reason for concern (though if it were me, I’d separate them), but rather the issuing of a press release that is defending something the for-profit arm did. I think I’ve been fairly upfront about the fact that I certainly could be wrong, haven’t I?

    “I think it is obvious you have a bias against FreeandEqual, and it would be helpful to everyone in the movement if you could recognize your problem and get past it.”

    This is simply not true. I have a bias FOR any ballot access reform group–including Free&Equal. My disagreements with their personnel aside, I’m happy with how hard Free&Equal fought against Prop 14.

    I’m glad you’re willing to admit the “sexist” allegations are out of the blue–because I was simply lost. Before you continue with this vitriol, consider everything that I’ve said above, including many good things about Free&Equal and virtually nothing bad. Free&Equal or its supporters (i’m guessing you’re just one of the latter) should not be attacking people because of disagreements in strategy. I’m going to email Christina Tobin now and extend an olive branch in hopes that this won’t escalate into something it was never meant to be.

    “I also should mention Trent Hill predicted the Proposition 14 final vote would be 64% Yes to 46% No, and he was making that prediction right at the same time Vote No groups were trying to get last push fundraising, enthusiasm, and media going. A lot of help that negative and completely wrong prediction pulled out of his ass was doing for the cause of ballot access.”

    I was VERY pleased to see my predictions were wrong. My prediction, though, made on the eve of the vote in the comments thread of an old post on this blog were unlikely to dissuade anyone from voting–especially since for months I’d been encouraging people to vote against Prop 14 regardless. This blog, the one I edit, gave more coverage to the anti-Prop 14 effort than any other on the Internet. It also issued an editorial, penned by me, against Prop 14. I suppose one could call me a Negative Nancy, but I was cheered by the more positive results.

  11. JeffTrigg

    “I made the statement based on the fact that a non-profit put out a statement defending the petitioning of a for-profit.”

    You are going to take a while, so I’ll do this slow. Where does the statement defend any petitioning done by a for-profit? Ooops, they are defending the Green Party’s ballot access rights aren’t they. No one is questioning the petitioning that was done. Except you, I guess. So you start off reading things and making connections that aren’t there. We’ll see if I have to bother with any more of this, you seem like one of those who is never wrong.

  12. JeffTrigg

    “That is, indeed, blurring the legal distinctions between the two. ”

    No it isn’t, and you are pulling that out of your ass. You are not a legal expert and you do not know the legal distinctions and have no evidence they are being blurred. Perhaps those lines are being taken advantage of to their fullest just as they are, and this is an awesome example of how things can get done.

  13. Trent Hill

    Jeff,

    The entire case involves the Democratic Party questioning the legitimacy and ethics of a GOP donor financing the petitioning efforts of the Green Party. Thus the petitioning effort is both implicitly and explicitly involved in this press release, the following is a direct quote from it:

    “93,000 Texas voters legitimately expressed their wish to have the Green Party on the ballot, and we intend to make every legitimate effort to avoid disappointing them.”

    The 93,000 mentioned are those who signed signatures. This is, obviously, an explicit mention of the petitioning. That petitioning was done by the for-profit. However, I will admit that no one has questioned the ethics of Free&Equal in this case (myself included), and rightly so. The money came from a GOP donor to the Green Party, who then used the money to pay Free&Equal, so they certainly aren’t being implicated.

  14. Trent Hill

    “Perhaps those lines are being taken advantage of to their fullest just as they are, and this is an awesome example of how things can get done.”

    Perhaps you’re right, I hope so.

  15. JeffTrigg

    “You don’t remember correctly. The “professional arm” of the Working Families Party is called Data and Field Services–and it is a for-profit company. They are in trouble because they, too, blurred the lines of distinction between non-profit and for-profit. This is a VERY germane example, I assure you.”

    I stand corrected. Have they been charged with anything yet, or had campaign fines levied of any sort, or just guilty in some of the minds of people paying attention but haven’t had a day in court yet? I honestly don’t know how it turned out.

    However, it’s still not an apt comparison because FreeandEqual, either one, isn’t a political party like Working Families Party is and they haven’t done anything in Texas that is similar to what the Working Families Party does in NY. Is there some specific comparison you have between the situation in Texas and NY, other than you now the situation in NY looks bad and it suits you to link FreeandEqual with bad situation? Seems to me you pulled that connection out of your ass. Why not pull a connection out of your ass like the SEIU-Illinois and Progress Illinois LLC, or any of the hundreds of political consulting/PR firms and non-profits that get by every day with no problems? I’m thinking you are baised to see the bad connection with Working Families, instead of the hundreds that are good and have no problems.

  16. JeffTrigg

    “The entire case involves the Democratic Party questioning the legitimacy and ethics of a GOP donor financing the petitioning efforts of the Green Party.”

    We don’t even have a case yet. We have news stories and press releases and a quick trip in front of a sympathetic judge, but we don’t have a case.

    The entire case is the Democratic Party using anything they can to take shots at Perry and the Republicans and even knock the Greens off the ballot while they are at it.

  17. JeffTrigg

    “Ohk, c’mon, we can maintain a level of decorum here can’t we?”

    Sure. When I’m not being an asshole my decorum is just fine.

    Look, we have enough people out there throwing around insinuations or whatever you want to call them about the Texas situation. We do not need you throwing more of them out there that no one else is making.

    You mentioned you were looking out for us from rich Democrat operatives, well guess what, we are facing them right now, have in the past, and will in the future. If there was anything behind what you “are worried” about, they would be all over us for it. They are not becuase there is nothing there and speculating or insinuating that there might be doesn’t help up.

    The Dems only care about taking shots at Perry and the Republicans, number 1, and damaging the Greens, number 2.

  18. JeffTrigg

    “I’m going to email Christina Tobin now and extend an olive branch in hopes that this won’t escalate into something it was never meant to be.”

    Good deal, sounds like a fine plan to me. She didn’t put me up to this and I’m probably going to get in trouble for doing this on my own, but something needed to be aired out.

    I still don’t see how anything can be seen as blurry, as even the Democrats in Texas haven’t seen anything blurry either, they are just suing for what might be blurry in the future it sounds like to us thus far. I think it’s you Trent, that’s my opinion. FreeandEqual Inc., and FreeandEqual.org are right out there with the same name and everything, not trying to hide a thing, like Data Services or whatever.

    I volunteer for FreeandEqual, mostly stoptoptwo, and have been re-imbursed less than $301 for complete disclosure, but someone who knows they share all their staff would already know that.

    Did you know that the House and Senate staffers in Illinois all take the same days and weeks off their government jobs to go do campaign work when they are out of session? Did you know pretty much every government entity is like that? The spokesman for the Speaker of the House is also the spokesman for his re-election campaign, and on and on. It isn’t at all hard to keep two things separated when one is involved in politics.

  19. Trent Hill

    “Have they been charged with anything yet, or had campaign fines levied of any sort, or just guilty in some of the minds of people paying attention but haven’t had a day in court yet?”

    They’ve been charged, I couldn’t tell you what the specific charges are off-hand, but i’m sure Google could. They haven’t had a court date set yet.

  20. JeffTrigg

    Correction, whether not when. It isn’t at all hard to keep two things separated whether one is involved in politics.

  21. Trent Hill

    Im not going to defend the actions of the Democratic Party in Texas–we agree that they’re likely just stalling for time. I will say that voters, liberal voters especially, are likely to see the situation (A GOP donor giving the GP money) as unethical and underhanded–and therefore are more likely to vote Democratic.

    The rest I’ll just not comment on. We simply disagree on a couple of things, which is fine. The rest, we agree.

  22. JeffTrigg

    Trent, I responded to bust your chops because I don’t think you were fair with those statements. It looked to me like you were just piling on trying to make FreeandEqual, which I consider myself a part of as a volunteer, look bad. Saying legal lines are being blurred based on feelings but no expertise or evidence is not something I take lightly and I will go into asshole mode when that happens, but I’ll apologize for being an asshole to you since I do believe you now that you didn’t intend it in that way. So I apologize for being an asshole, but make no promises that it won’t happen again, and in fact, can probably guarantee it will happen again. My only agenda is my own and I really could care less who I piss off these days. That is good and bad.

    I’ve been out of the picture for a while, but I appreciate IPR and everything you guys do here. It takes something huge, a lot bigger than this disagreement, for me to keep a grudge. Its too bad our first interaction wasn’t good, but you never know about the future. I get along with everyone who doesn’t accuse me of doing illegal things. I’m sure I’ll like you if I give you a better chance than this. We’ll see.

  23. JeffTrigg

    I agree with you completely about the appearances of this and how that might impact some people’s perceptions between the GOP and GP. The Dems have every right to scream gotcha, but that is all this really is I believe, the Dems screaming gotcha about who paid for what. And that is more than enough without new things being added.

  24. JeffTrigg

    As far as I can tell, the only link to blurry lines you were making was the press release supposedly covering for FreeandEqualinc. Would this press release still make sense and be relevant and useful if FreeandEqualinc had not done the petitioning? Yup.

    I still don’t understand exactly what line is blurry and I still think you were wrong to say lines are being blurred without good evidence to show us which lines those were.

    It’s kind of like me just saying, I think the posts on IPR blur the lines between legal slander and insults or that IPR’s articles blur the line between reporting/media and campaign advocacy/campaign finance law. Wouldn’t you want specific examples or proof if I made those allegations that you might not be following the laws?

  25. JeffTrigg

    I don’t and can’t speak for FreeandEqual, this is all on my own, but I do hope the un-called for comments and bickering, including from an asshole volunteer, will get put past us. No reason why it can’t be.

    I think FreeandEqual is going to accomplish a ton more and make a lot more noise going forward. StopTopTwo.org was a great coalition team effort (at the same time a Texas sig drive was on completely separately), and StopTopTwo isn’t done yet either. There’s room for COFOE and FreeandEqual and Californians for Electoral Reform, and the LP, and GP, and AIP, and Peace and Freedom, and CP, and BTP and IPR and independents like me and anybody else that wants to help the cause of better democracy. We even got the GOP and DEMs involved on Prop. 14, but it looks like we got beat by the AARP. Its great that some of the noise FreeandEqual and others make have an outlet here to be heard and amplified. Lets all do some more good in whatever way we can.

    I’ll be nice as long as I don’t have to defend stuff I don’t think I should have to, or stupid politicians are involved.

  26. Green Party Conservative

    Some discussion gentlemen.

    I think it’s terrific that one or two oil party folks gave the Green Party of Texas petiton signatures to get ballot status.

    I’d like to see them do that in all 50 states.

    Good luck Green Party of Texas. Add Kinky Friedmann to your candidate list.

    Thanks for the work.

  27. JT

    Just to comment on one aspect of this situation: I think it’s obvious that the only reason a wealthy Republican would donate a lot of money to the GP is because he thinks Green candidates will cut into the votes of Democratic candidates. It isn’t logical to believe a Republican donor honestly wants to support the GP because of the GP’s agenda. So I agree with Trent on that point.

    I don’t think that’s going to make a significant number of Republican voters cast their votes for Democratic candidates, though. In fact, I think most of them would support doing that kind of thing. It might sway a significant number of independent voters, but I doubt that many. I don’t think many voters cast their votes based on who donates to whom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *