Press "Enter" to skip to content

Marianne Williamson Wins Endorsement of the SoCal Americans for Democratic Action

Marianne

(The following was posted on Williamson’s campaign website.)

LOS ANGELES, CA – The Marianne Williamson for Congress campaign announced that Americans for Democratic Action, SoCal chapter has endorsed Marianne Williamson in District 33 after a candidate forum in Venice May 6. ADA is the oldest liberal political lobby in America, co-founded by Eleanor Roosevelt and other progressive leaders in 1947.

The forum was co-sponsored by SoCal ADA and the Venice Action Alliance.  Of the eighteen candidates in the race, six attended to answer questions by panelists and community voters on numerous national and local issues.

“I am honored to receive the endorsement of the SoCal chapter of the ADA,” Williamson said. “The ADA, founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Reuther, Arthur Schlesinger, and Reinhold Niebuhr was established to keep the New Deal dream alive. I am running for Congress because that New Deal dream – the American Dream – is on the verge of perishing. We need to revive the dream with a Green New Deal, create the opportunity for every child to have access to pre-school, provide free college in exchange for one year of national service, produce serious legislation on climate change and pass a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw the undue influence of money on our politics. Humanitarian rather than economic values should be society’s bottom line,” said Williamson

Williamson’s endorsement of the SoCal ADA follows on the heels of the endorsements by other progressive Congressmen including Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives), former congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), as well as social justice activist Van Jones and environmentalist Ed Begley Jr.

Joe Cicero, SoCal ADA President said, “With so many talented, capable progressives in the race, we wished we could send several of them to Washington. But finally, we think Marianne is the right candidate for these difficult times and will be an outspoken advocate for economic justice. We need a forceful independent advocate who is willing to fight for the 99% as our representative in Congress.”

Forum coordinator John Seeley continued, “Winnowing our choice to Ted Lieu, an energetic and savvy legislator we’ve endorsed before, and Marianne Williamson, a fresh and visionary voice focused on the critical issue of saving democracy from big money, ADA ultimately decided on Marianne. While Ted has many pluses, his recent abandonment of affirmative action – the key to preventing a permanent black and brown underclass – was a deal-breaker.”

About Post Author

Joshua Fauver

24 Comments

  1. Jed Ziggler Jed Ziggler May 8, 2014

    This is the evil of top-two. Marianne is a strong independent candidate, yet due to limited time to campaign, low turnout from independents in primaries, and a crowded field, voters will likely be forced to choose between two duopoly candidates in November.

  2. Nathan Norman Nathan Norman May 8, 2014

    Who is forcing them?

  3. Richard Winger Richard Winger May 8, 2014

    Under the old, ordinary system, Marianne Williamson could have completed a petition and then been guaranteed a spot on the November ballot. Furthermore, under the old system, with a Democratic opponent and a Republican opponent on the November ballot against her, she might have won with as little as 37% of the vote. Jesse Ventura in Minnesota in November 1998 won with only 37.0% of the vote. Almost all of the independent and minor party governors across the U.S. since World War II won with less than 50% of the vote.

  4. Nathan Norman Nathan Norman May 8, 2014

    What is the new system?

  5. Jed Ziggler Jed Ziggler May 8, 2014

    Top two. All candidates on the ballot in an open primary, only top two advance in November. Sometimes it means voters must choose between two Republicans or two Democrats. No other option other than to stay home.

  6. Nathan Norman Nathan Norman May 8, 2014

    That’s bad public policy.

  7. Antirevolutionary Antirevolutionary May 9, 2014

    First Past The Post electoral system is by far the most disgraceful. Someone who only wins with 37% of the vote cannot be a legitimate representative because 63% voted against them. In the Top Two system, the majority of voters vote for the winner, even if they are voting for the Lesser of Two Evils. If Marianne does come in second place in June, she will face only one other candidate, probably a Democrat, in November, and that’s a much better chance for victory. Marianne’s supporters in an FPTP system, who would mostly prefer a Democrat over a Republican at least to some extent, would have been scared to vote for her in a November election because of vote splitting.

  8. paulie paulie May 9, 2014

    At least she would have been on the ballot in a real election that can elect someone, after regular people start paying attention to political races. Now she will not be.

  9. johnO johnO May 9, 2014

    Should’ve run with Cindy Sheehan’s Peace and Freedom Party.

  10. Nathan Norman Nathan Norman May 9, 2014

    I am persuaded by Antirevolutionary. On your point paulie, why is the primary not a real election?

  11. NewFederalist NewFederalist May 9, 2014

    Voter turnout in primary elections is generally much lower than in the general election. Many people do not pay attention to candidates until a few weeks before the general (or “real”) election. That is why the “Top Two” system is flawed. Nominees moving on to the general election may have very limited support but the ability to mobilize their supporters in an election (the primary election) with much smaller turnout and get to appear on the November ballot. There have been instances where the “Top Two” were from the same party in a district wherein the voter registration favors the opposite major party. The problem was the dominant party in that district had 10 candidates in the primary and the votes were so fragmented that two nominees from the opposite major party advanced to the general election. It is just a bad concept.

  12. Nathan Norman Nathan Norman May 9, 2014

    Thank you New Federalist. I see your point. Would you favor top 2 if it took place between the top 2 finishers in the general election?

  13. paulie paulie May 9, 2014

    Real elections elect people. No one can be elected as a result of a primary, even if they get an outright majority, so voters can rationally ignore a primary and just focus on the main event; kind of like qualifying races for the olympics, or watching reports of who gets cut from training camp. Most people pay no attention to that. So you could get twenty or thirty people running with whatever label they “prefer” which may or may not have anything with their views. Why would anyone care? Voters mainly just ignore that and wait until the candidates who could be elected are the only ones left. The other candidates may as well not exist. Knowing that, they generally don’t bother to even run in the primary. And, top two proponents have been caught admitting quite a few times that this is the actual purpose of top two, rather than whatever lies they tell to help make it sound better and get people to support this evil system.

  14. paulie paulie May 9, 2014

    Runoff elections are completely different from top two. They only take place if someone does not win a majority in the general election. Runoff elections generally take place after the traditional general election date in November and are a positive reform for non-establishment candidates, unlike To Two which is designed to – and does – kill off non-establishment voices.

  15. Nathan Norman Nathan Norman May 9, 2014

    Thanks. That makes good sense. Elections should be about choice. The important question to ask is does this promote choice. Can primary voters make more informed choices on average than general election voters on average?

  16. paulie paulie May 9, 2014

    It’s where well organized and financed groups eliminate everyone else (including non-establishment people in the big two parties) before most voters even notice that an election will be happening.

  17. Nathan Norman Nathan Norman May 9, 2014

    Don’t well organized, well financed groups always win elections?

  18. paulie paulie May 9, 2014

    Usually, but not always. Jesse Ventura started at 7% in the polls and would have been eliminated in a top two primary, but went on to win the race for Governor, for a counter-example.

    There’s winning, and then there’s excluding everyone else from participating. Even when alt parties and independent don’t win they can participate in debates, get news coverage, push the winning candidates towards their views by contesting otherwise uncontested races and holding the balance of power in close elections, open the minds of voters to new ideas, mobilize support for the future, and so on. The Top Two system is designed to eliminate all this and is effective in doing so. It safely eliminates opposition viewpoints before voters and media start to pay any serious attention, and that is the exact purpose. Knowing this, those outside the establishment in most cases do not even try running in top two non-elections.

  19. Nathan Norman Nathan Norman May 9, 2014

    Ok. You’ve convinced me.

  20. Jed Ziggler Jed Ziggler May 9, 2014

    “https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/03/editorial-ipr-opposes-proposition-14-in-california/”

    I like that article. The Editorial Board of Independent Political Report has a nice ring to it.

  21. paulie paulie May 9, 2014

    Yes, it does.

  22. Steven R Linnabary Steven R Linnabary May 31, 2014

    FYI

    http://alangraysonemails.tumblr.com/post/87440108286/this-is-how-a-real-progressive-sounds

    On Tuesday, there will be a primary in Southern California to choose the successor to Rep. Henry Waxman, a master legislator who has served in the House for 40 years. In that race, I’m hoping that you will show your support for Marianne Williamson, the most inspirational candidate of 2014. Rather than telling you about her myself, I’m going to let her explain her candidacy in her own very articulate words. Here is her message to the voters and to America, featured in her current TV ad:

    “Hi. I’m running for Congress because I think we’re living through the corporate takeover of the United States government. We have shrinking civil liberties, we have undue monied influence, and we have domestic surveillance. So, at what point do the American people say, “No More!”? We need a people’s movement. Independent voices, passing a constitutional amendment to outlaw the undue influence of money on our politics, in order to return our government to the American people. I’m Marianne Williamson, and I approve this message.”

    Q. Who else is addressing the voters with this kind of ennobling call to action on the central issue in our political system?

    A. No one else.

    Please click here to support Marianne Williamson’s congressional campaign. I need her, with me in Congress. You need her. America needs her.

    Courage,

    Rep. Alan Grayson

  23. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt June 1, 2014

    I’m not too hopeful that she’ll make it through the primary. She’s run an excellent campaign, and has had a lot of high-profile people behind her. Hopefully she’ll run again until she finally gets elected somewhere.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.