Sunday’s Hartford Courant had a feature on Connecticut’s Working Families Party, writing that while the Green and Libertarian parties “portrayed themselves in federal court last week as victims of Connecticut’s campaign-finance law,” the WFP “refused to join the two other minor parties in claiming that qualifying for public financing is too difficult for their candidates. Instead, its state party director, Jon Green, struck a cocky tone in an affidavit his party filed with the court in defense of the public-financing law. ‘I believe that for an effective minor party with a developed electoral strategy, like the Working Families Party, the requirements are quite attainable,’ Green said.”
The Courant continued, “No one doubts that the party has a well-developed political strategy based on fusion politics — cross-endorsing sympathetic major-party candidates, usually progressive Democrats. On Election Day last month, the Working Families Party provided the margin of victory for three Democratic challengers who won what had been Republican seats in the state House.” Green “said his party has commissioned a study to examine how many additional voters Working Families brings to the polls, as opposed to simply drawing votes away from major parties. With its cross-endorsements, Working Families tries to attract many unaffiliated — even disaffected — voters who would not support a Democrat or Republican. The party says its line offers voters ‘a protest vote that counts.'”
Basically what I meant in #3, but thanks for the added detail!
Ross – I also used to respect the Working Families Party at least somewhat. Every time I read about WFP in the news, however, my contempt for them grows. To meet truth in advertising requirements, WFP should rename itself the Working For Democrats Party.
In New York, WFP has become a Democrat-funded weapon against third parties that the Dems don’t control, namely the Greens. In 2006 the WFP was still publicly Nader-hating and telling progressive voters that voting for candidates like Hillary Clinton on the WFP line would convince them to end the war and other good stuff. Yeah, that ‘well-developed strategy’ sure worked out.
WFP endorsed the entire Dem ticket (obviously) and received a cool 200 grand from Eliot Spitzer for it. He didn’t need their votes, as he railroaded the Repub; the only thing WFP really accomplished was denying the Greens ballot status by funneling progressive voters to the Democrats. Of course, they had plenty of funds to advertise. WFP may not run its own candidates, but it sure doesn’t want other third parties to have that chance.
Since 2006, the WFP-endorsed candidates for attorney general and governor have stood down to avoid impeachment for ethics violations.
The saddest thing is that WFP accomplishes nothing they couldn’t accomplish as Democrats. Even if they make up the difference in close elections – they’re still voting D to help Democrats. Their cravenness and eagerness to be handmaiden to a party of corporate handmaidens is a living, breathing argument against fusion.
Just because the bar set by the law is attainable does not mean that it is not discriminatory. Again I will point out that some Dems and Reps did not get 20% and will still be qualified for the full amount of public financing (my money). They did not show the amount of support that they say is necessary for the other parties to show. They should be held to the 20% (10 or 15 for partial funding) vote total also. I am against public financing on principle but this also discriminates. The Ds and Rs should be forced to run candidates in an election or have to get signatures to qualify.
The WFP has shown itself to be opposed to the Constitutional principle of “equal protection under the law”.
It’s a good thing they weren’t around during the civil rights era. Imagine them claiming that blacks should still sit in the back of the bus because at least they can still get where they want to go!
If THAT is progressive, I’ll take a pass. Too repulsive for me.
Pacem en Terris
Yeah, I know. Supposedly, though, they’re able to push the Dems in a more progressive direction.
It means they are basically an arm of the Democrats.
What does that even mean?
I like the WFP, but lost some respect for them with this. I guess it’s all politics, but they should encourage participation, even if it doesn’t fit their idea of what a third party should be.
Minor parties? ha. The GP & LP are both third parties while the “Working Families Party” is a minor party.