Randy Credico, a somewhat famous comedian, announced in January 2010 that he intends to run in the Democratic primary in New York for U.S. Senate, against incumbent Charles Schumer. He has more recently said that he may seek the Libertarian Party nomination for the same office. New York law would permit him to be the Libertarian nomination even if he ran in the Democratic primary and lost it. Here is a story about him from the Huffington Post. Here is his webpage. Thanks to Peter Gemma for this news.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
1994 NYS-LP Gov candidate Howard Stern petitions — see Schulz v WIlliams aka Schulz v Berman
Non-other than former election attorney and NYS Supreme Court Justice Tom Spargo represented Schulz / Stern petition in state court prior to the above federal litigation.
Well, didn’t Al Franken start out as a comedian? We need more people with a sense of humor in the U.S. Senate. Lord knows we have enough clowns already so bring on the stand up comics!
The future of congress, instead of MBA or law school, it will be Clown College or circus experience ……….
Hmmm…I wonder what success he’ll have in soliciting corporate-financed advertising advocating his candidacy?
After all, a “well-reasoned” and “dispassionate” analysis of the recent USSC decision surely MUST conclude that the ruling is a HUGE boon for third party candidacies. I mean, it stands to reason that big US corporations have been just ITCHING to open their coffers in support of third party candidates who will be able to caucus in a telephone booth if they actually win the election.
Right?
Richard?
OTOH, a business or an industry might think of merger & acquisition of a small party — so as to be able to make immediate use of its primary (no pun intended) assets: brand name and market, er, *ballot* access. . . .
5 –
Hey…great idea! Now THAT’S what I call “well-reasoned” and “dispassionate.” What a great application of unfettered capitalism in a republican society!
But as I think of it, this approach seems unnecessarily incremental. The stout, strict constructionists on the USSC bench probably would, too.
So how about this – let’s extend this “personhood” concept further and let corporations…RUN FOR OFFICE! Why waste time and effort with useless middlemen? Downsize, cut government FTE’s, and increase productivity. It’s the American, capitalist way.
It only makes sense to a “well-reasoned,” “dispassionate” person. If we’re going to stop putting unfair restrictions on the individual rights of corporate “persons,” like free speech, how on earth can we justify restricting any of their other rights as “persons?” All the USSC needs to determine is that the date of incorporation is, in essence, the “birth date” for a corporation and thereby establishes its “citizenship”. With that settled, I see no Constitutional impediment. (However, long form certificates of incorporation only!)
I can hear it now…”The Chair recognizes Senators Proctor and Gamble from the great state of Ohio…”
What do YOU think, Richard?
5 –
On second thought, maybe this wouldn’t work. I’m just thinking about the debates between two corporations running for office. I don’t think there are many studios which would have the room for a chair for each and every stockholder of two companies.
Gosh, this freedom of speech for corporate persons is more complex than I thought.
Good information. Tweeted about it. I’ll bookmark this place too.
Thanks for the info… I actually like this blog. I bookmarked this post and will unquestionably be making a return visit.