American Solidarity Party Presidential Ticket Achieves Ballot Access in Colorado; Announces National Campaign Strategy

 hsolidarity

Press release from the American Solidarity Party:

The American Solidarity Party has successfully placed its presidential candidate, Mike Maturen and his running mate Juan Muñoz of Texas on the ballot in Colorado. Todd Lowman, the chair of the American Solidarity Party of Colorado, praised the Colorado Secretary of State’s office for its responsiveness, allowing the party to finish raising funds for the filing fee, recruit a slate of presidential electors, and turn in the necessary paperwork hours before the state’s deadline on August 10. Lowman invites potential campaign volunteers to join the American Solidarity Party of Colorado’s Facebook group or contact him at coloradoasp@yahoo.com. The ASP sees opportunities in Colorado, where the Republican Party is widely dissatisfied with presidential candidate Donald Trump’s polarizing rhetoric and unclear policy positions, while many voters of all political identifications are uncomfortable with the Democratic Party’s views on abortion and growing centralization of authority in the Federal government, among other issues.

     The ASP also hopes to achieve ballot access this month in Louisiana and Florida, as these states also give third parties a greater chance to succeed. Chris Reed, the chair of the American Solidarity Party of Louisiana, who expressed excitement about the possibility of voting for a “whole life party”, notes that the party does not yet have a member willing to serve as a presidential elector from the fourth congressional district, centered near Shreveport, and must raise $500 by August 19. In Florida, the ASP is filing paperwork to be officially incorporated as a state political party, and must have 29 presidential electors officially registered with the party by the end of August. The ASP state chapters in Louisiana and Florida each have active Facebook groups. The ASP is also exploring possibilities for presidential ballot access in several other states, is actively working to register the presidential ticket as a write-in campaign in over 30 states, plans to join efforts by other minor parties to overturn difficult ballot access laws, and is preparing to build local organizations which will run candidates for a variety of offices in the 2018 elections.

     The party’s platform, which can be found here, is inspired by Catholic social teaching and the ideas of Christian Democratic parties in Europe. In contrast to its socially conservative views, it is center-left on most issues related to economics, immigration, the environment, and foreign policy, while arguing for local government control of policy when practical and significant reforms in taxation. Its members are aware that running a primarily write-in campaign for President in most states is a difficult task, but presidential candidate Mike Maturen has argued that current partisan polarization has made the development of alternatives necessary. The ASP has also determined that the Libertarian Party, Green Party and other minor parties do not hold to the values present in the American Solidarity Party’s platform, and that they, along with the Democrats and Republicans, leave a significant segment of the electorate unrepresented. By most measures (registered members and social media followers), the party has doubled in size since the nomination of the presidential ticket last month. Its public Facebook page comes in slightly ahead of the Reform Party and only slightly behind Better for America, two more well-known centrist parties running similar presidential campaigns, which will have ballot access in only a few states while running write-in campaigns in most others.

     The party’s presidential and vice-presidential candidates are available for print, radio and television interviews, and the national and state parties are running an active social media campaign. Vice-presidential candidate, Juan Munoz, in a statement for this press release, thanked supporters in Colorado and across the nation; “I’m excited to hear the ticket will be on the ballot in Colorado. More than that, I’m humbled to be part of a movement that would inspire people to volunteer their time, talent, and treasure in order to give themselves the best choice for the future of our country.”

For further information, please visit our other pages, like us on Facebook, or
contact Christopher Keller, Campaign Media Manager:
americansolidaritypartyasp@gmail.com
(Please address correspondence to Christopher by name)

 (Via American Third Party Report)

20 thoughts on “American Solidarity Party Presidential Ticket Achieves Ballot Access in Colorado; Announces National Campaign Strategy

  1. Tony From Long Island

    Announcing that someone made the ballot in Colorado isn’t really much news. All it takes is apparently three signatures.

  2. Antirevolutionary

    9 signatures, Tony, plus a filing fee and lots of paperwork. It’s true that lots of parties made it onto the ballot in Colorado, but the ASP didn’t even expect to be running a presidential campaign until less than a month ago, and their campaign has been run entirely on social media, with no big money behind it like Better for America; yet ASP has almost as many Facebook likes as B4A. I know you have the opposite positions on most issues, but give some respect.

  3. Tony From Long Island

    I meant no disrespect. I only meant that Colorado is the easiest ballot to get on, so it’s not really a major news announcement.

    My views do not fit solidly within any party That’s why I am a registered Democrat but have often voted Libertarian.

  4. Tony From Long Island

    Just read the platform. Much I do agree with. However, ya lost me with the ridiculous “one man and one woman.” Let it go. It’s over.

    Also, the constitution IS a secular document. There should be no mention of some mystic “god” on our money or anywhere else – especially in the pledge of allegiance.

    I didn’t notice any mention of a stance on gun regulation, but I only gave it a cursory look over since I am at work.

  5. RedPhillips

    The idea of a party framed around Catholic social teaching is intriguing, not because I agree with it, but because it introduces an element that is not well represented in America currently, socially conservative but fiscally liberal (more or less). (A lot of African-Americans are this way.) But I’m not wild about the name. American Solidarity Party? That doesn’t really communicate anything to me.

  6. Zeleni

    Solidarity conveys socialism to me. It’s actually attributed to the Polish Solidarity movement, which also lent it’s name to the Illinois Solidarity Party. The Illinoi’s Solidarity Party was formed by Adlai Stevenson III after LaRouche followers won Lt Gov and Sec of State in the Democratic Primary. The Solidairy ticket received 40% and the Democrats were below 7%.

  7. Richard Winger

    Yes, in 1986 the Illinois Democratic ticket of no one for Governor and a LaRouche supporter, Mark Fairchild for Lieutenant Governor (running jointly) got 6.6%. Illinois had a straight-ticket device back then. That shows the power of a straight-ticket device. Without it, the Democratic ticket of no one for Governor linked to Fairchild for Lt. Governor would not have got even 6.6%. And if that ticket had got under 5%, the Democratic Party would no longer have been ballot-qualified for all partisan offices. It would not have been ballot-qualified in 1988 for many legislative offices and partisan county offices, and its nominees would have needed a 5% petition.

  8. RedPhillips

    It’s hard to know all the details based on a bullet point platform, but I suspect the intent of the economic part of the platform is to suggest a “distributist” model which would be consistent (arguably) with Catholic social teaching. Perhaps they could have called themselves the Distributist Party.

  9. Mike Maturen

    The term solidarity conveys our belief that “we are all in this together”. It fits solidly with the concepts of Catholic Social Teaching (which appeal to not only Catholics, but all those of compassion). The three concepts which color all of our ideas are Solidarity, Subsidiarity and Distributism.

    Our party motto is “Common Ground, Common Good, Common Sense”.

    As the Presidential nominee, I am overjoyed at the progress our party has made in just the past month or two. The current ugliness being displayed in the two major parties is driving growth in interest in third parties. I believe the time is now to make a difference and change the face of American politics.

  10. Paul from Louisiana

    With regard to “However, ya lost me with the ridiculous “one man and one woman.” Let it go. It’s over.” I am overjoyed that the then fledgling Republic party did not take that attitude with the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision.

    With regard to the “mystic God” comment, the two key founding documents in American history are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The first explains why we exist as a nation. Not only does the Declaration mention God four times, most importantly, it says that our rights come from the Creator.

    The Constitution explains how we exist as a nation—how we are to function. The Constitution is predicated on the Declaration. When skeptics claim the Constitution doesn’t mention God (which it does, in the ratification clause), they ignore that the latter is predicated on the former.

    The American Solidarity Party supports the Bill of Rights, which the last I looked does guarantee the right to bear arms.

  11. SR

    “Solidarity conveys socialism to me. It’s actually attributed to the Polish Solidarity movement, which also lent it’s name to the Illinois Solidarity Party.”

    Polish Solidarity were trade unionists, and yet they were supported by the Pope and Reagan, and was one of the movements that led to the fall of Soviet domination over eastern Europe. Perhaps this year is the year that Americans realize that not all socialism is bad?

  12. Zeleni

    “Perhaps this year is the year that Americans realize that not all socialism is bad?”

    I think they already did with Sanders. Let’s hope the trend continues

  13. Tony From Long Island

    Paul: “. . . . With regard to “However, ya lost me with the ridiculous “one man and one woman.” Let it go. It’s over.” I am overjoyed that the then fledgling Republic party did not take that attitude with the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision. . . . ”

    It’s actually called the RepublicAN party (which I am not a member of). It’s not really hard to remember is it? Comparing gay marriage to Dred Scot it really disgusting . . . the marriage question is done. finished. Over. You LOST. Progress won – as it always does.

    Paul ” . . . . The American Solidarity Party supports the Bill of Rights, which the last I looked does guarantee the right to bear arms. . . . ”

    That’s a serious cop-out. I am for serious and strong gun regulation, but I still support the Second Amendment because it allows for regulation.

    P.s. No matter how you spin it, the founding documents were not religious documents. Religiosity was a social norm then (which thankfully it is not now). The documents HAD to somehow include the word “god” to be taken seriously. Religious hasn’t and doesn’t have any place in public policy

  14. Paul from Louisiana

    Tony, Thank you so much for your pithy remark concerning my auto correct misspelling of Republican. I am not one either.

    I am sorry you find my comparison of Obergefell v. Hodges and Dred Scott v. Sandford “disgusting.” Whether you find it that way or not, the comparison is still legitimate. I was not comparing gay marriage to slavery, but rather the fact that it was less than unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that was considered “settled” and the “law of the land” that was eventually overturned.

    With regard to the your historical errors concerning God and the founding of the nation, you must have never read the Federalist Papers.

  15. Bondurant

    Reagan supported Polish Solidarity because it was politically advantageous and made for convenient proxy against USSR.

    Socialism is bad. It does not rely on goodwill and charity but coercion, force and manipulation.

    I donate to certain causes because I want to. I should not be forced to do so.

  16. Joshua Also From Louisiana

    One has to be either illiterate or historically stupid to think that the founding documents of this country are not secular in nation. Indeed, the entire reason for the original colonists leaving England to settle here was to escape a religious government and enjoy a secular one. If our founders and framers had wanted a religious government or a government intertwined with the Church they would have stayed in England where the King was both the head of state and the head of the church. They didn’t. They fled that and founded a secular nation and secular government.

    Really, I mean, let’s look at some of the founders writings on the matter. Shall we?

    I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
    exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” -Jefferson

    “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Jefferson

    “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” -Jefferson

    “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.” 1797, The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by the Senate of the United States with no a single solitary dissenting vote. (And article 6 section 2 of the constitution tells us that treaties passed under the authority of the congress and signed by the president are equivalent with the supreme law of the land.

    “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” -Washington

    “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” -Franklin

    “[T]he number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.” -Maddison

    So, I think it’s abundantly clear that our founders themselves, the Constitution they drafted, and their idea of government was secular. They intended for a secular state and secular government. End of story.

  17. Someone from Somewhere

    @ Paul from Louisiana

    I am sorry you find my comparison of Obergefell v. Hodges and Dred Scott v. Sandford “disgusting.” Whether you find it that way or not, the comparison is still legitimate. I was not comparing gay marriage to slavery, but rather the fact that it was less than unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that was considered “settled” and the “law of the land” that was eventually overturned.

    Dred Scott was not “overturned,” it was simply superseded by a constitutional amendment that came about because of a 4-year civil war. Somehow, I doubt a civil war is the solution you want.

    At any rate, if your problem is same-sex marriage, your party is going about it in the way least likely to work and most likely to drive people away from supporting your party. Let’s look at the platform:
    -We support the legal recognition of marriage as a union of one man to one woman for life.

    Note the words “legal recognition.” Here’s the problem. This is reliant on the same oxymoronic stance that caused this issue in the first place: You want the definition of marriage to be defined by your religion, but you put it under the control of the secular state.

    What you should be doing if you’re hung up on that is to take marriage out of the state’s hands entirely. Transfer all rights granted in it to some kind of civil contract issued by the government that any two people can make with each other and make marriage itself an explicitly religious institution with no official government recognition (much like baptisms, bar mitzvahs, etc.). Then you can define it however you want in your church, free from the government possibly changing its definition. Sure, the liberal churches can take a definition you disagree with and will be willing to marry people you won’t, but *you* don’t have to recognize those marriages.

    @ Joshua Also from Louisiana

    Indeed, the entire reason for the original colonists leaving England to settle here was to escape a religious government and enjoy a secular one.

    No, it was to escape a *particular* religion’s government. Most of the early colonists were actually very religious, but their religion was not the same as the one that ruled the state and thus they left to go where they could enact their own government based on their own religion. Read “A Model of Christian Charity” and then try to argue that the people who founded the Massachusetts Bay colony wanted a secular government. Indeed, all you have to do is look at the actual laws in that colony, which required you to be a member of the church to participate in the political process. That sounds the opposite of secular to me.

    If our founders and framers had wanted a religious government or a government intertwined with the Church they would have stayed in England where the King was both the head of state and the head of the church. They didn’t.

    The “founders and framers” were very distinct from the original colonists. For example, the aforementioned Massachusetts Bay colony came to America in the 17th century, over 100 years before George Washington was even born. Indeed, most of the founding fathers never left England because they never started there—they were born and raised in America! You’re conflating two different groups of people.

    As for the quotes, the founders said so many things that it’s extremely easy to grab statements from them to argue the exact opposite. For example:

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.” – George Washington (farewell address)

    “Religion always has and always will govern mankind. Man is constitutionally, essentially and unchangeably a religious animal. Neither philosophers or politicians can ever govern him in any other way.” – John Adams (letter to Francis van der Kemp)

    Similarly, let’s consider this quote you mention:

    “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.” 1797, The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by the Senate of the United States with no a single solitary dissenting vote. (And article 6 section 2 of the constitution tells us that treaties passed under the authority of the congress and signed by the president are equivalent with the supreme law of the land.

    Want to know what also passed unanimously by Congress? And was negotiated by the founders Benjamin Franklin and John Adams? The Treaty of Paris, which begins with the phrase “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” I don’t think offhand remarks in treaties mean much in regards to what the founders thought, particularly with treaties made with countries on the other side of the ocean where any adjustments would require considerable time to re-negotiate. This is especially true in the case of the Treaty of Tripoli, where there was likely a rush to get the thing signed and stop the pirates from attacking American ships, so even if there was objection to that portion, it would have been considered secondary in importance to stopping the pirates.

    In regards to the parenthetical argument, that because treaties are law that therefore makes that phrase law… there’s a big problem with that argument, even if it’s true. The Treaty of Tripoli was later revised and the new version did not include that portion, so even IF it were therefore law, it would only be “legally binding” for the intervening 8 or so years.

    Note that, despite all of the above, I am not trying to argue that the United States was originally based on the Christian religion or anything like that; to be honest, I’m fairly neutral on the subject, and the counterarguments I present largely result in a zero sum game of showing how the ‘other side’ can make the same kind of argument. But I do have a problem with what I see as bad arguments, which I believe your message is filled with.

  18. Martin

    So…I really can’t find it anywhere but are you available as a write in on the Florida ballot now? This would be really great – I’m glad someone had the you know whats to step up and be part of the solution.

  19. Mike Maturen

    Martin,

    Unfortunately we are not. We SHOULD have been on the ballot, but the Florida Secretary of State changed the rules in mid-process, essentially messing up several third parties, including the ASP. What he did was wrong, but it appears that no one will sue due to the cost.

    Although we will not be authorized write-ins, feel free to do so anyway.

Leave a Reply

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