The Reform Party has set a teleconference national committee meeting for December 19, Saturday. Now that the Texas-based officers have won the federal lawsuit in New York establishing their ownership of the party’s trademark, the party hopes to rebuild. It is still ballot-qualified in Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. That is more states than any other nationally-organized party, except for the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green and Constitution Parties. The Working Families Party is still not a nationally-organized party.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
Pingback: Reform Party Calls Teleconference National Committee Meeting | Independent Political Report
I am very excited to be a listener to this meeting.
Here in NJ, we are beginning to establish ourselves. As everyone in 3rd parties knows it’s a long road but I believe we have the proper hard working individuals beginning to join and who are already here.
In NJ, we have started an e-mail list, started to tweet, and in the process of creating a Facebook and other websites/ways to gather interest for the RPNJ.
I hope to hear from a lot of states tomorrow.
Jake- What does the Reform Party now have that the Modern Whig Party doesn’t have? It seems to me the Reform Party has a past while the Whigs may have a future. At least they are a fresh face without the RP acrimony of recent years. I am just curious since both parties seem to be in the center.
what a waste of time. Just merge into the Whig or the Libertarian Party and “get er done”.
Richard:
Do you happen to know why the Working Families Party
has yet to become a nationally-organized party? By
their own admission it seems that they are intent on
establishing a national prescence of some manner. By
only going into states that currently permits fusion
they are limiting the possibility for establishing
themselves. Piggy-backing with candidates of other
parties seems to me to be a limiting strategy.
I’m guessing that “not nationally organized” means they haven’t filed with the FEC?
How about New York, Minnesota, Kansas, Oregon, and Delaware? Aren’t they ballot qualified Reform Parties except for the name they go by?
Michael,
The New York Independence Party does not share a name and is not part of the Reform Party’s national committee. The same goes for Minnesota.
The Kansas Reform Party long ago broke with the national committee, they are extremely conservative Pat Buchanan supporters and seem to want to work with the Constitution Party more than anyone else.
I know nothing of Oregon or Delaware.
I am impressed by the Reform Party Chair David Collison. We may see a re-birth of the Reform Party.
“Nationally organized” means that the group has national officers, elected in a national meeting of some sort. Lots of parties are nationally organized but have never filed with the FEC for recognition as a “national committee”. For example, Socialist Workers, Party for Socialism and Liberation, Socialist Equality, Communist, Prohibition, Boston Tea, Conservative. For some reason the state Working Families Parties have never gathered together into a national organization, even though the various state parties cooperate with each other.
To Deemer of California:
Charles, Does your post mean that you are trying to qualify the Working Family Party in California? Would
you state to the SOS that the January 10, 2006 letter of Nancy on S. B. 28 was disinformation, since the AIP
State Central Committee did not meet at anytime between
January 1, 2006 through January 10, 2006?
Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg, Vice Chairman, American
Independent Party
Muddie, muddie waters ……….
Donald Raymond Lake
To Newfederalist and BuckeyedKned:
I think “Reform Party” is a better name than “Libertarian Party” “Constitution Party” or “Green Party”. Many voters don’t understand or trust the idea of libertarianism: “But what if I need the government?” Many voters also think that citizens, as in actual human beings, are more important than a document. They believe in the constitution, but probably wouldn’ put it before other things. As for the Green Party; I think environmental conservation appeals to lots of people with differences on other issues. You can be a conservative and belive in global warming. But it’s just too easy to see the greens as one-issue candidates.
Reform Party is a nice broad lable that invokes many possibilities. It says “the government’s frigged up. We are going to fix it.” I think lot’s of people what to hear that. It’s all about marketing, and trademarks. It’s stuff worth going to court over. Just an idea.
Michael:
I spent 40 minutes giving you a history of the RP’s squabbles only to accidently delete everything I wrote. Just know this: The Independence Party of New York lost big time in court two days ago. They tried to take over the Reform Party. They are big in New York, but not affiliated with the Reform Party.
The Reform Party has plenty of history and has learned many things the hard way. The Reform Party has had to overcome both internal and external factions that have done more to harm credibility than help.
The new Reform Party must be bottom-up. A genuine democratic process with internal rules that prohibit any hostile or manufactured take-over.
Future internal corruption cannot be tolerated. Over the past few years the Reform Party has had to reform itself instead of being focused on reforming government.
And finally, the Reform Party must be inclusive and populist. The People vs. The Corporate Interests who have unconstitutionally stripped The People of their civic power and responsibility.
To the best of my knowledge the Reform Party is the only U.S. political institution in favor of granting The People a right to vote on divisive issues via the national referendum process using paper ballots.
I look forward to working with some if not all of you in the coming months.
Steven Thompson, editor
Freedom From The Press and,
founding member and former state chairman of the Reform Party of Washington State
To “dinnerbellbishop”:
It is unfortunate that what you wrote about the history of the Reform Party was accidentally deleted. It would have been interesting to read a recap of what has transpired.
If the Reform Party could regain its ballot status in California, it would look more like it was going to be an important party again. At this point in time, I do not see any indications that that is going to happen. I hope that I am wrong about that.
important hearing next Tuesday regarding ACORN’s role in 2010 census and voter registration/enrollment.
ACORN v US USDC-NYED 09-4888
Equal ballot access petitions for all candidates for the same office in the same area.
P.R. and A.V.
NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
So difficult.
Thanks for the information. Also, I’ve heard there’s a Reform Party in South Carolina. Is it involved in all or any of this?
The RP of California is pretty much being run by John Blare, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They have spent much of the past years trying to tell everyone else how to run their business, rather than trying to build a party in their own state. Whether they will ever again obtain ballot status is really a question of whether the RP of California is ready to do any real work in the state.
The NY Independence Party is, IMO, of absolutely no consequence at all. If you look at their ballot from year to year, you quickly realize they exist to do little more than provide an additional ballot line to the two major parties. When Golisano decided to stop running for Governor, their identity as an independent third party pretty much vanished.
The Independence Psrty of Minnesota and the Independence Party of New York were members state organizations of the Reform Party USA from day one. Minnesota left shortly after Jack Gargan was removed as Chairman of the RPUSA in early 2000. New York left as part of the mass exodus in Long Beach 2000 following the Buchanan nomination. Both have been in direct or indirect contact with most, if not all of the Reform Party factions in the intervening years. Hopefully this week’s court action will finally settle the RPUSA leadership issue and a number of state party organizations which have sat on the sidelines waiting to the dust to settle, in some cases since 2000, will then be ready to come back.
“a number of state party organizations which have sat on the sidelines waiting ………..”
Lake: oh, like Frank MacKay (of Long Island New York State) flighing into Sacramento and handing John ‘Bible Beater Jewish Zionist’ Bambey a $500 check (possibly made out to John ‘Israel First’ Blare) and with in weeks became ‘National CEO’ —– a non existent office ……….
sitting on the side lines ?????????????
“Jack Gargan (and) Buchanan ……… Both have been in direct or indirect contact”
Lake: You have no idea of which you are talking about!
Quick – a silver bullet…
Quick – a wooden stake!
Tom,
Doesn’t The Independence Party of New York predate the Reform Party? I know They gave Perot the ’96 ballot line. I know more recently, they tried to create a new party to absorb the RP. But were they actually, officially, a RP branch? I just don’t see Golisano making that kind of commitment to Perot’s movement.
Independence Party of Minnesota (Dean Barkley), Independence Party of NY (Gordon Black), Pennsylvania for Perot, Independence Party of Missississippi (Ted Weill), Oregon, Virignia and a number of other state parties came out of Perot 1992 and pushed for and were part of the organization that became the Reform Party in 1995-1996. If you go back to the AOR that was filed regarding the FEC recognition of the National Committee of the Reform Party you can read who was there prior to 1996.
next year is (yet again every forth year) is the big year to force a statewide OTB (opportunity to ballot) for the office of NYS Governor (and “grass-roots” and possibly including “independent voter” participation as well as lockbox enrolled IPNY party member control) upon the IPNY state committee and IPNY state-chair/SEC. Litigation from the past several years is preloaded in the USCA-2nd Circ for decision of the basic issues and a new fresh horse (litigation) will be filed early in the new year (2010).
Jeffrey McCloskey Says:
December 19th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
The RP of California is pretty much being run by John Blare, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They have spent much of the past years trying to tell everyone else how to run their business, rather than trying to build a party in their own state. Whether they will ever again obtain ballot status is really a question of whether the RP of California is ready to do any real work in the state.
The NY Independence Party is, IMO, of absolutely no consequence at all. If you look at their ballot from year to year, you quickly realize they exist to do little more than provide an additional ballot line to the two major parties. When Golisano decided to stop running for Governor, their identity as an independent third party pretty much vanished.
Phil Sawyer responds:
It is going to take more than “real work” (as necessary as that is), Jeffrey. It is also going to take another candidate like the Honorable Ross Perot to bring back California ballot status. Candidates like Mr. Perot do not come along very often.
You make a good point about the Independence Party of New York. If the party was really independent, it would have nominated the Nader-Gonzalez ticket last year – rather than the McCain-Palin ticket.
Phil:
Not sure what happened but there were discussions with Nader in NY. and in PA. I know in PA it was Nader’s personal decision, not his staff’s.
Florida has been the backbone of the Reform Party from the very beginning.
It takes a ton of work to get ballot access. We did it in 1998.
The states that “waited to see” what was going to happen are part of the problem ,in my view. Yeah, sure, sit back and just watch.
That’s reform? That, shows no loyalty to the people who endured all of these lawsuits for the last few years. They all ran like rats off a sinking ship. Now, that we’ve won………they’re willing to put in with us. Gee, thanks. You let the party dwindle from the national presence it was because you didn’t want any part of the process to keep us a major force, as far as 3rd parties go. Now, I want to see THOSE states fight as hard as we have and pledge their loyalty to the RPUSA and work, work, work. David Collison deserves your help. HE is loyal !!!
Now, now, now, there you go again, you lying bitch! The degree of local DIFFICULTY from state to state differs greatly. FLorida as Donna and your husband Rubin Hernandez continue to fail to mention, is relatively easy to get ballot qualified. Reform when [so called] reformist lie cheat and steal like the Democans and the Republicrats ???????
Item: Donna Shankel [sp] “oh yeah, I really did NOT mail a roll of stamps to Sand For Brains Madison [Texas Twisted Sister of Bad Bag Lady Kennedy], I just said that to get her out of a lie that she told. Now that you [and Rubin] have tossed her and Beverly Kennedy off of their virtual monthly print house organ news letter, I am not going to mail you, or have her mail you said postage. Get over it, it never happened,I LIED!” [or words to that effect ……]
Item: Janice Miller/ Mrs Ruban Hernandez, “oh what’s up Don Lake ???? Oh, lots of folks are going to be at the [fakey dakey] Tampa Saint Pete ‘national convention’ in a few days. Locally that includes P2000 Presidential hopeful fellow USAF rocket scientist Bob Bowman. You heard differently ????? Sorry I can not help that!”
“Oh, Lake, you again? You just got off of the phone with Doctor Bowman? He’s in his RV out side of Kansas City, headed west ????? Oh! Well, these paint fumes are getting to me. I (on a mobile phone) have to get out doors and have a cigarette ……”
Item: “It takes a ton of work to get ballot access. We did it in 1998.” No worries in FLorida you consummate liar!
Tom McLaughlin Says:
December 20th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Phil:
Not sure what happened but there were discussions with Nader in NY. and in PA. I know in PA it was Nader’s personal decision, not his staff’s.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Thank you, Tom, for the information. Are you saying, though, that Mr. Nader did not want the nomination of the Independence Party of New York? That does not make sense to me. If that was the case, though, the Independence Party should have nominated Cynthia McKinney (I am sure that she would have taken it); or a favorite son or daughter (Lenora Fulani would have been perfect). The party certainly should not have nominated the McCain-Palin ticket.
Don: It is neither “rational” nor “scientific” to call people names. Did we not all learn that in grade school?
From all the discourse and arguing within the Reform Party, just on this thread, I don’t hold out much hope for them. Still too many egos.
Ballot access: Florida IS simple to get on the ballot– anyone can create a party in Florida and a few other states. Try creating a party in OK, AR, OH, WV and other states.
I still don’t get why the so-called Reformers just don’t take over an existing minor party in a state, such as the LP or the CP. Heck, the LP is going thru a “reformation” period anyway and most of its crazy platforms have been tossed out or reduced to something that 98% of the population understands– much more pragmatic.
Phil:
In PA we offered to do all his petitioning for Nader with our volunteers for free. We have a very successful track record with our petitioning in PA.
I know there were direct discussions with Nader in NY. Those discussions ended after the discussions with PA but well before the NY state party chose their nominee. I do not know all the details that produced the decision in NY but as I understand it, Nader turned it down.
The discussions I was involved in indicted Nader wanted to avoid ANY “party” ties, if at all possible.
# Phil Sawyer Says: December 21st, 2009:
Don: It is neither “rational†nor “scientific†to call people names. Did we not all learn that in grade school?
Lake ************ Ah the guy whom is constantly surprised at how dishonest political types are! If you are not blindly bitter with the 1920s style deceit of the Power Elite have used to wounded the nation of my birth, then may be you are too poor to pay attention ! ………
Lake ************ Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves, like ‘Papa’ Joseph P. Kennedy, Henry Ford, and (then President) Hubert Hoover, whom all used insider trading to bail out of Wall Street b4 the Crash! [At least Hoover lost his job, Joe Kennedy became the first SEC Administrator!]
“Reformers just don’t take over an existing minor party in a state, such as the LP or the CP. Heck, the LP is going thru a “reformation†period anyway and most of its crazy platforms have been tossed out or reduced to something that 98% of the population understands– much more pragmatic…… ”
As a non Lib I basically agree with Buckeye Kned’s statement, but I wish to go one further. April First [what a terrible day for a political announcement] 2004 the Religious Masters of the Natural Law Party shut down the electorial side of the ‘house’.
As Richard Winger, Phillip Sawyer, and I, independently, lobbied the reformers, [John Blare included] to inhabit the ballot access shell of the NLP, the silence was deafening.
[John, Bible Beater] Bambey and Valli Sharpe – Geisler were such partisan ego maniacs that they insisted that if the Rfm Party [of California] could not regain ballot access after helping to depose of Reicht Marshall Governor Gray Davis [2003] then they did not deserve such.
My ability to petition was the reason [then] state chair Jeff (GOP) Rainforth contacted me, via Citizens For A Better Veterans Home co founder John [Israel First] Coffey. Oh happy daze, oh happy daze!
paulie // Dec 21, 2009:
Lake: paulie, thx, but will you agree that in the 21st century FLorida is relatively easy to get and keep ballot access ?
paulie: Having done it for the Boston Tea Party in Florida in 2008, yes, absolutely, very easy. Possibly the easiest in the country now.
So the NLP is officially dead and to think the Reform Party (or others) could have taken that “shell”.
Sounds like egos, nothing more and nothing less. Not sure if they could have changed the name later to their liking. Some states won’t allow for name changes–such as Michigan.
We have so many openings at the county and state level of the LP in Ohio, that we are throwing the doors wide open for liberty-minded citizens to “come on in”. We are the big tent party of the 21st century. Why re-invent the wheel in Ohio, when it is already there?
Tom McLaughlin Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 8:25 am
Phil:
In PA we offered to do all his petitioning for Nader with our volunteers for free. We have a very successful track record with our petitioning in PA.
I know there were direct discussions with Nader in NY. Those discussions ended after the discussions with PA but well before the NY state party chose their nominee. I do not know all the details that produced the decision in NY but as I understand it, Nader turned it down.
The discussions I was involved in indicted Nader wanted to avoid ANY “party†ties, if at all possible.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Thank you again, Tom, for the information. If I understand you correctly, I do not understand Ralph Nader’s reasoning regarding Pennsylvania and New York. Who did the Reform Party (or Patriot Party, or Independence Party) of Pennsylvania nominate? In Caliornia, the only realistic chance that Mr. Nader had for ballot access, in 2008, was the Peace and Freedom Party. I was one of many people instrumental in making sure that PFP-CA nominated the Nader-Gonzalez ticket. It was a very hard fought contest but we won!
BuckeyeKned Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
So the NLP is officially dead and to think the Reform Party (or others) could have taken that “shellâ€.
Sounds like egos, nothing more and nothing less. Not sure if they could have changed the name later to their liking. Some states won’t allow for name changes–such as Michigan.
We have so many openings at the county and state level of the LP in Ohio, that we are throwing the doors wide open for liberty-minded citizens to “come on inâ€. We are the big tent party of the 21st century. Why re-invent the wheel in Ohio, when it is already there?
BuckeyeKned Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
So the NLP is officially dead and to think the Reform Party (or others) could have taken that “shellâ€.
Sounds like egos, nothing more and nothing less. Not sure if they could have changed the name later to their liking. Some states won’t allow for name changes–such as Michigan.
We have so many openings at the county and state level of the LP in Ohio, that we are throwing the doors wide open for liberty-minded citizens to “come on inâ€. We are the big tent party of the 21st century. Why re-invent the wheel in Ohio, when it is already there?
Phil Sawyer replies:
Your are correct about the Reform Party not utilizing sufficent creativity in its efforts. Some people are probably tired of hearing me say it (so I have not mentioned it just lately) but it needs to be said now: The Reform Party of California should form a Reform Caucus and join, en masse, the American Independent Party. They could take the party over by 2012, perhaps even next year.
There already is talk about the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party trying to do just that if the “terrible two” bill passes next year (and they lose their ballot status). It certainly would be interesting to see the American Independent Party deal with the Peace and Freedom Party people. What entertainment that would be! Who would need DVD’s?
AIP-CA has no problem keeping a sufficent amount of registrants. Many people think that they are signing up as independents when they check on the AIP line. How they can not know what they are doing is beyond me but (supposedly) it happens over and over again. In addition, the American Independent Party certainly has a very good name. Voter registration? Not a problem!
Rationality and Science Education Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“Reformers just don’t take over an existing minor party in a state, such as the LP or the CP. Heck, the LP is going thru a “reformation†period anyway and most of its crazy platforms have been tossed out or reduced to something that 98% of the population understands– much more pragmatic…… â€
As a non Lib I basically agree with Buckeye Kned’s statement, but I wish to go one further. April First [what a terrible day for a political announcement] 2004 the Religious Masters of the Natural Law Party shut down the electorial side of the ‘house’.
As Richard Winger, Phillip Sawyer, and I, independently, lobbied the reformers, [John Blare included] to inhabit the ballot access shell of the NLP, the silence was deafening. … [snip] …
Phil Sawyer responds:
Thank you, Don, for mentioning that again. By the way, my name is spelled with only one “l”: Philip or Philippe – not Phillip. On of my best friends (and fellow California elector for McCarthy ’76), Phillip Dorn, uses two “ll”s.
Lake: sorry, social convention and lots of drugs and little sleep ……………
It makes no sense for Greens and Peace & Freedom party members to join the AIP. What would be the point?
Phil:
In PA we did not nominate anyone for statewide office in 2008. No one inspired the troops enough to put forth the effort to collect the necessary signatures. Nader would have but he went independent in PA. We did officially endorse Marakay Rogers – Libertarian for State Attorney General. You can not cross nominate in PA.
dinnerbellbishop Says:
December 21st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
It makes no sense for Greens and Peace & Freedom party members to join the AIP. What would be the point?
Phil Sawyer responds:
It is not very likely to happen but it should not be ruled out if the “top-two” bill passes and those parties lose their ballot status. The point would be to take over the party machinery and “make over” the party into something new, leftist, and relevant.
Tom McLaughlin Says:
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 am
Phil:
In PA we did not nominate anyone for statewide office in 2008. No one inspired the troops enough to put forth the effort to collect the necessary signatures. Nader would have but he went independent in PA. We did officially endorse Marakay Rogers – Libertarian for State Attorney General. You can not cross nominate in PA.
Phil Sawyer replies:
Thank you for the very interesting information, Tom.
# dinnerbellbishop Says: December 21st, 2009:
“It makes no sense for Greens and Peace & Freedom party members to join the AIP. What would be the point?”
Don Lake: The point is that the Establishment Duopoly is so evil that it over shadows any intra opposition squabbling and nit picking. For years I tried to get the left of center types to except and even out reach to their more conservative anti war allies to little travail.
Don,
I think all the AIP members should join the Green Party. I think Global Warming MUST be dealt with now. I think the Green Party is the only political aparatus available to help us deal with it. While I accept that not everyone has this view, I believe the intention of the Green Party should be to make it so that everyone has this view. Why be politically active if you’re going to join a party that doesn’t support your views? At a certain point stating your position is more important than winning votes.
Don Lake: my political view is that the Democans and Republicrats are pure evil ……….
Don Lake: The point is that the Establishment Duopoly is so evil that it over shadows any intra opposition squabbling and nit picking. For years I tried to get the left of center types to except and even out reach to their more conservative anti war allies to little travail.
Phil Sawyer responds:
Don, did you not mean to write “to little avail and much travail”? As a Left Conservative, in the tradition of the late, great, Norman Mailer; I am willing to sit down and discuss politics in a civil manner with most people. Not people who advocate racism, sexism, violence and that sort of thing, though. Nor Republicans, either. The Republican Party is now completely worthless and any person who is still a member of that party (after eight years of the Bush-Cheney Administration wreaking havoc on our country) should be ashamed of himself or herself.
Don, did you not mean to write “to little avail and much travailâ€? …………. Yes
Hey Phil, I want to make sure I clearly understand your position about the GOP. Kidding. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would not even recognize the GOP for what is has become. With the demographics changing in this country, I am not sure about the long-term prognosis of the GOP. Final nail in coffin will be when they move hard-right on social issues and middle-left on fiscal issues.
BuckeyeKned Says:
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 am
Hey Phil, I want to make sure I clearly understand your position about the GOP. Kidding. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would not even recognize the GOP for what is has become. With the demographics changing in this country, I am not sure about the long-term prognosis of the GOP. Final nail in coffin will be when they move hard-right on social issues and middle-left on fiscal issues.
Phil Sawyer responds:
With all due respect to the many liberals who are actually fiscally conservative, hasn’t the GOP already moved “middle-left” – with all the billions of debt racked up under the Bush-Cheney Administration? Furthermore, isn’t the Republican Party already “hard-right on social issues”?
Wikileaks