Veiled references to Americans Elect in the media

Ballot Access News:

Steve Kornacki, Salon’s news editor, has this commentary on the chances of a powerful third force presidential candidate next year.

The column, and similar commentary, usually say that minor party and independent candidates for important office never win. These articles should acknowledge that in the period starting in 1970, there have been seven gubernatorial elections and six U.S. Senate elections in which someone won who was not a major party nominee.

Also at Ballot Access News:

Chuck Todd, chief White House correspondent for NBC News, predicted on September 14 that if the Republican Party nominates Rick Perry for President, a strong third ticket will emerge in the 2012 election. Todd seems to be describing Americans Elect without actually naming Americans Elect. See this story. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.

IPR notes:

1) Both Todd and Kornacki draw parallels to Perot in 1992. Perot was at 40% in the polls before dropping out and back in, leading both Clinton and Bush.

2) Kornacki also mentions NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg as a potential candidate. Like Perot, Bloomberg is a billionaire. Unlike Perot, he also has a record as an elected public official. Bloomberg has been both a Democrat and a Republican, and is currently an independent. Bloomberg was the focus of recruitment efforts by Unity ’08, the predecessor organization of Americans Elect. That effort went nowhere due to FEC rulings at that time, but since then the US Supreme Court has cleared the way for them to raise and spend money in the ways they wish.

3) Kornacki points out a number of similarities between the elections of 1980, 1992 and 2012, including a weak economy and an incumbent president seeking a second term. The 1980 election had a relatively strong moderate independent candidate in John Anderson. As mentioned above, Perot made an even stronger run in 1992.

For more information see

For a critical perspective, see:

as well as (sister organization with many organizational links)


20 thoughts on “Veiled references to Americans Elect in the media

  1. Brian

    I don’t like the media narrative surrounding this whole thing. I don’t think Rick Perry will get nominated and I don’t think Bloomberg would make a run (He’s practically indistinguishable from Obama on policy issues and lent a lot of support to critical Dems in ’10). Without Bloomberg, I have trouble seeing how the organization could attract a big enough name. I think that Huntsman could make it interesting as an AE candidate, though.

  2. paulie Post author

    I think Bloomberg will run.

    AE is spending millions of dollars on ballot access (with only a tiny portion of it going to the people actually getting the signatures).

    They are not spending the money so as just to blow it for no reason. They want something out of this.

    Whoever they run will be “bridging the center” and qualified by background – Governors, Senators, Billionaire Executives or War Generals – the type of background that past presidents and serious contenders have been from.

  3. paulie Post author

    I don’t think Rick Perry will get nominated

    You may be right. Rest of the NSGOP field looks pretty damn weak from where I am sitting (as someone who sees both the Ds and Rs as equally bad, just in slightly different ways).

  4. paulie Post author

    organization in Alaska is actually Arno in California!

    AE is not a grassroots organization anywhere. It is a corporation owned by a small number of very wealthy people that discloses as little information as they can legally get away with. The Arno petition company is in tight with them (including on the corporate board) and their “organization” in any state right now is actually just petitioners who travel for a living and work on whatever pays. Arno and its subcontractors keep much more money for every signature than the people who actually collect these signatures, with the lion’s share going to Arno…easily millions of dollars already and probably well over ten million before they are done nationwide.

  5. Steve

    Americans Elect – because 2 parties is 1 too many!

    Seriously though, I wonder if their nomination process will be as open as they claim. While the corporation itself is pretty closed-off to the public and presumably a front for Bloomberg, it seems that their actual nomination would be easy to hijack assuming you had a large enough group of highly motivated people united around one candidate, lets just say Ron Paul.

  6. paulie Post author

    While the corporation itself is pretty closed-off to the public and presumably a front for Bloomberg, it seems that their actual nomination would be easy to hijack assuming you had a large enough group of highly motivated people united around one candidate, lets just say Ron Paul.

    Not so easy.

    Keep in mind:

    1) They reserve the right to reject anyone they don’t consider ideologically qualified from being a candidate. Ideologically qualified to them means “bridging the center” and the definition of that is up to them.

    2) They also reserve the right to reject anyone who is not in their opinion qualified by their background to be president. They could conceivably say that no person that has not risen above US House has come close enough to winning the presidency recently enough.

    3) If anyone complains about the decisions they make, they can be booted out as a delegate and banned from AE discussions.

    4) Will there be any independent verification of delegate eligibility or vote counting procedures? Probably not. So, even if they allow Ron Paul to be nominated, will it be a fair election?

  7. Steve

    Thanks for the reply Paulie, all are good points. However, since there isn’t a groundswell of public support for Americans Elect and their process is taken over by Paulites or maybe Jesse Ventura fans, how do they look when the leadership says “no wait, we didn’t mean the delegates would choose the candidate, we meant Bloomberg”?

    I doubt any rational person will by what they’re selling (and the irrational vote is pretty much monopolized by Obama and Romney) so I don’t get their approach. They should just run Bloomberg openly.

  8. paulie Post author

    However, since there isn’t a groundswell of public support for Americans Elect

    They haven’t spent millions of dollars on advertising yet. They will, though.

    They have barely begun their media blitz. It will be coming.

    their process is taken over by Paulites or maybe Jesse Ventura fans, how do they look when the leadership says “no wait, we didn’t mean the delegates would choose the candidate, we meant Bloomberg”?

    It won’t come to that because they will kick out anyone who disputes any decision they make, such as for example deeming someone not qualified to be nominated by virtue of their background or views.

    So, as soon as Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura’s nomination is rejected, that’s the end of discussion. Anyone who objects can be summarily decertified as a delegate and removed from the discussion forums.

    Another possibility could be that Paul and/or Ventura would be allowed to be nominated. Paul may actually decline the nomination, unless it is after the Republican nomination, or maybe even then.

    But let’s say he is allowed to be nominated and accepts the nomination.

    Well, Bloomberg can afford a lot more advertising than Paul can, and he can get a bunch of “middle of the road” delegates with the help of a fawning MSM.

    Now, let’s say Paul is allowed to be nominated, accepts the nomination, and the Patraeus/Bloomberg recruiting efforts fizzle no matter how much money they spend and how much media they get.

    Well, who counts the votes? Is there an independent verification process of who the delegates are and how they actually voted? My guess is there won’t be.

    the irrational vote is pretty much monopolized by Obama and Romney

    I don’t think it is. Many people – more than in past elections – are ticked off at both the Ds and Rs, yet not attracted to small, extremist parties with no money. A war general and billionaire executive/big city mayor may seem like just the kind of people to solve a crisis to a lot of folks. There will probably be a lot more games played between Obama and Congress where they threaten to shut down government, default on the debt, etc. Someone who is well-financed and has been elected to a major office (or managed a war) saying they will break the gridlock may get a lot of people listening and nodding their noggins.

  9. paulie Post author

    Here is an email I received this morning:

    More evidence that this groups is a sham. Peter Ackerman is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Lynn Forester de Rothschild is married into the (in)famous Rothschild banking family. Lynn was introduced to her husband, Sir Eveyln de Rothschild (who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth) by Henry Kissenger at a Bilderberg Group meeting. Lynn Forester de Rothschild was a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the 2008 Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination, but she later endorsed John McCain for President. Lynn has stated that she wants to form a “centrist” group. That group is obviously Americans Elect.

    WOW, Americans Elect has got New World Order written all over it.

    Check out these links:

    It seems clearly apparent to me that Americans Elect is a sham of a “third” party. They are what I’d call a phony opposition group. That is that the “powers that be” who control both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (and therefore the entire government) know that a lot of people are frustrated with both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The last thing that the “powers that be” want is a REAL “third” party or independent candidate who is actually going to make some REAL pro-freedom changes (even if that candidate is not libertarian on all of the issues). The “powers that be” or the elite want a candidate who they control. The LAST thing that they want is a candidate who is pro-freedom or at least somewhat pro-freedom whom they do not control. They don’t want the Libertarian Party to get anywhere, and they don’t want the Constitution Party or Green Party to get anywhere either. They don’t want any “third” party or independent candidate that they don’t control to get anywhere. They don’t want any real mavericks who run in their two controlled party primaries (ie-the Demrocartic and Republican primaries) like Ron Paul to get anywhere either. The establishment is doing and will do whatever they can to prevent Ron Paul from winning the White House. The establishment will also do whatever they can to keep any real “third” party or independent candidates who are a threat to their power from getting anywhere. They’ve already rigged the game against “third” party and independent candidates by making it hard for them to get on the ballot, keeping them out of debates, making sure that they don’t get that much converage in the mass media, etc… A lot of people are hungry for other choices outside of establishment Democrats and Republicans, so what better way for the establishment to take advantage of this by creating a phony “third” party that is actually controlled by the establishment, but which pretends to be a “greass roots organization” that really cares about fairness in the election process and really wants to give the public another choice outside of NWO candidate A vs. NWO candidate B, as in Democrat vs. Republican.

    This situation reminds me a lot of the election of 1912. G. Edward Griffin does a good job describing the events of this election in his book, “The Creature from Jekyl Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve System.” Griffin points out that in the Presidential election of 1912 that there were three candidates who were backed by the banking cartel. They were the Democratic Party candidate Woodrow Wilson, the Republican Party candidate and then President William Howard Taft, and former President Teddy Roosevelt who ran as a “party” candidate for the Progressive Party which was also known as the Bull Moose Party. The bankers controlled all three candidates, but the one that they really wanted in office the most was Woodrow Wilson. Teddy Roosevelt was coaxed into running as a distraction and to siphon votes away from Taft. None of the three would have been any good from a pro-liberty perspective, but Wilson was the candidate whom the establishment believed was best suited for ushering in their latest schemes for control. Woodrow Wilson was elected President and it was during his term that the Federal Reserve Act was implemented and also that the so called “income tax” amendment was allegedly ratified to the Constitution (I say allegedly because there is evidence that it was never legally ratified, and that the unapportioned tax on labor as applied today is actually being applied in an unconstitutional manner when it is applied to American citizens who work within the 50 states). Woodrow Wilson also got the USA into World War 1 even after he had promised to stay out of the war. American involvement in World War 1 was totally unnecessary and this caused a lot of unnecessary death and destruction and for resources to be wasted, and it also made the situation in Europe worse and many historians believe that American involvement in World War 1 helped set the stage for World War 2, and that World War 2 may never have happened if the USA had simply staid out of World War 1. Wilson also got the USA involved in the first attempt at a world government organization in the League of Nations. Fortunately, the League of Nations collapsed, but unfortunately it was replaced by the socialist United Nations a few decades later.

    History has a tendency to repeat itself, so that looks like what we have here with the upcoming 2012 Presidential race. Democrat Barack H. Obama is the current President. We don’t know who the Republican Party’s candidate will be as of yet, but the establishment appears to be pushing Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, so it could be one of them, but maybe it will be somebody else – it probably WON’T be Ron Paul though, because the establishment will do whatever they can to make sure that doesn’t happen. The establishment will also have another horse in the race in Americans Elect who will run so people think that they have another choice, but in reality Americans Elect is going to give people a false choice, because Americans Elect is obviously controlled opposition (as in they are part of the establishment, along with the Democrats and the Republicans). We don’t know who is going to be the candidate for Americans Elect at this point, but there are strong rumors that it could be Michael Bloomberg who is the current Mayor of New York City (and who is also a billionaire). Another rumored candidate for Americans Elect is David Patraeus , a retired Army General and the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Whoever the candidate for Americans Elect ends up being, you can bet that it is going to be an establishment shill. So whoever gets elected President between Obama, the Republican Party candidate (unless it is Ron Paul, but fat chance of this happening), or Americans Elect, it won’t make any difference who gets elected because they will all be part of the establishment and they won’t offer the public any real change except for continuing the trend of making government bigger and bigger and for trampling on individual freedom more and more.

    My biggest problem with Americans Elect so far from the petition stand point has been that it has been grossly under paying to the petition circulators. Americans Elect obviously has really big money behind it. Americans Elect has paid out a lot of money to Arno Political Consultants for ballot access. They’ve paid out $4-$5 plus per raw signature in every state so far to APC, yet only a small percentage of this money has been paid out to petition circulators. I don’t really care much for the petition. Americans Elect sounds like a nice idea on paper, but given the facts that I presented above it is not going to turn out to be nice in practice. I generally only work on petitions that I agree with or where I’m at least neutral, so why did I work on Americans Elect in California? Well, I didn’t really want to work on it, but I figured that they aren’t likely to win the election anyway, and even if they did win they aren’t going to be any worse that Obama or whoever the Republicans nominate (which I don’t think is going to be Ron Paul unfortunately), so why not get them on the ballot and take their money? The only problem with this is that most of the money for the Americans Elect petition has been taken up by APC and the petition coordinators that work under them.

    This is what burns me up the most about Americans Elect right now. The Americans Elect petitions could easily be paying $3 or more per signature on the street to the petition circulators. If they are going to get signatures for some stupid, phony party that is really just an establishment shill organization that is posing as a “third” party grass roots organization that is going to offer people a real choice, they could at least pay out some decent money to their petition circulators instead of paying them a low ball chump rate, and then in some cases ripping off their petitioners (as in the petition coordinators flat out stealing from the petition circulators). This situation is absolutely disgraceful, but then if you know about the people who control Americans Elect it shouldn’t be that much of a suprise. It is actually par for the course for people like that, for they are part of the establishment elite who rip us off and control and manipulate every one of us every day of our lives.

  10. Pingback: Americans Elect Corporation names itself a Grassroots Movement, embraces “Moderate” Ideological Label | Irregular Times

  11. Roger

    Why did they pick the 2 most crooked petition companies in the business to run their signature gathering?….Sure sounds like a scam to me however you cut it.

  12. Roger

    They are here in Texas now scamming for $1 per sig. The Houston Chronicle is running their add. The front desk wants to know who they are. Should we tell them?…….The front desk at the Chronicle really wants to know!…!

  13. George Phillies

    Ignoring the conspiracy babble, there is a somewhat more simple explanation for AE issues: The well-to-do folks who launched it know absolutely nothing about these mechanical issues, and made some bad guesses — if you credit the accusations — as to where to put their money.

    Alternatively, they asked some Republican campaign managers, who realized that their duty to their party was to do their best in subtle ways to deep six the AE effort.

  14. paulie Post author

    They are here in Texas now scamming for $1 per sig. The Houston Chronicle is running their add. The front desk wants to know who they are. Should we tell them?…….The front desk at the Chronicle really wants to know!…!

    Go for it. Dick and Jenny have ripped off a lot of petitioners all over the country for many years to fuel Jenny’s gambling addiction and they deserve whatever bad publicity you manage to get them.

Leave a Reply

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