Rules Must Bend to Allow McCain, Obama on Texas Ballot with Barr

Republicans and Democrats clearly miss Texas deadline

Though Texas election law sets an Aug. 26 deadline for political parties to file their candidates for president and vice-president, John McCain and Barack Obama must work around the law to get on the ballot alongside Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr.

"Agents of the GOP are twisting the law to have Bob Barr thrown off the ballot in Pennsylvania," says Russell Verney, campaign manager for Barr and a former campaign manager for Ross Perot, "while the law has to be twisted for them to get on the ballot in Texas. Rules are rules, except when they inconvenience those who make them."

According to Texas Election Code § 192.031 , a political party is allowed to have their candidates on the ballot if "the names of the party's nominees for president and vice-president" are submitted before "5 p.m. of the 70th day before" the presidential election.

Given that neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party nominated a candidate before Aug. 26, it would be impossible for either party to file under Texas law.

"Third parties are never given second chances when it comes to getting on the ballot," says Verney. "And third parties are often thrown off the ballot for the most minor infractions of ballot access laws. In Texas, we have a clear deadline that was not met by the Republicans and Democrats, but it is all but certain that some way, some how, the establishment candidates will find a way on the ballot. Some people are just above the law."

A spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's Office claims that both parties "filed something" on time, despite the fact that neither party had nominated a candidate by the deadline as required by Texas law.

"We agree that unreasonably early deadlines are absurd," says Verney. "We've run into them in states like Oklahoma, West Virginia and Maine during our fight for ballot access across the nation. But if third parties are required to adhere to the law, then we expect the same for the candidates of any other party. Maybe this will show Republicans and Democrats what it is like to be on the wrong side of ballot access laws."

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.

Please send comments to the Texas Secretary of State at: secretary@sos.state.tx.us

General: (512) 463-5770 Fax: (512) 475-2761

Unity08 and Ballot Access Requirements

Dear fellow members of Unity08,

One of our principles at the outset of this audacious project was transparency and openness. Too often in our recent political history, what you see is not what you get.

For this reason, we are writing you today to lay out the current status of Unity08 and possible paths going forward.

First, however, it's important to reflect upon what we - together - have accomplished in shaping the current political discussion and building a sense of what is possible in this crucial election year. Two of our core ideas - the importance of a centrist, bi-partisan approach to the solving of our nation's problems and the possibility of an independent, unity ticket for the presidency have already gone from far-out to mainstream.

Barack Obama, for example, has made the theme of unity and the necessity of bridging the partisan divide an absolutely central theme of his campaign. And just last week, a group of former and present national office holders - independents, Republicans and Democrats - met in Oklahoma for the sole purpose of stating their belief that at the present perilous moment, a unity government is the only hope of solving the nation's mounting problems. When you have agreement among the likes of former RNC chairman Bill Brock and Gary Hart, you're onto something.

And, of course, waiting in the wings should the divide persist, is the potential of a serious non-partisan candidacy in the person of the Mayor of New York (two of our founders Doug Bailey and Gerald Rafshoon have stepped down from the board and may have more to say about their plans in the near future).

Can Unity08 take full credit for these remarkable developments? Of course not, but through this website, your active involvement, innumerable news stories, op-eds, and public appearances by friends like Sam Waterston, we certainly have helped to bring these ideas to the forefront of the current political discussion.

So in a larger sense, we have accomplished a major portion of what we set out to do. But in the specifics and logistics, we have fallen short.

At the current moment, we don't have enough members or enough money to take the next necessary step - achieving ballot access in 50 states - to reach the goal of establishing our on-line convention and nominating a Unity ticket for president and vice president this coming fall.

The past year has taught us that it's tough to rally millions to a process as opposed to a candidate or an issue. In the past, third party movements that have broken through the monopoly of the established parties have always been based on a person (Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ross Perot in the last decade) or a burning issue (slavery in the case of the insurgent Republican party in 1860). Stirring people and moving them to action about a process change - replacing the quirky primary system that tends to drive candidates to the extremes with something more inclusive and sensible - has proven to be a lot harder than we expected.

And the Federal Election Commission hasn't helped. The Commission has taken the position that we are subject to their jurisdiction (even though two United States Supreme Court decisions hold exactly opposite) and, therefore, that we are limited to $5000 contributions from individuals (even though the Democrat and Republican Parties are able to receive $25,000 from individuals). Needless to say, this position by the FEC effectively limited our fundraising potential, especially in the crucial early going when we needed substantial money fast to get on with ballot access and the publicity necessary to build our membership.

We were caught in a peculiar catch-22; we wanted to break the dependence on big money by getting lots of small contributions from millions of members, but needed some up-front big money to help generate the millions of members to make the small contributions. And the FEC (in effect, an arm of the parties) didn't let that happen. We have challenged this ruling in the federal courts, but are still awaiting a decision and time is running out.

And so reluctantly, especially given the volatility of the present situation, we're forced to scale back - not cease - our operations and suspend our ballot access project. Our website will become less interactive (it takes staff to answer hundreds of e-mails a day) and we can't in good faith make the $5 million commitment necessary to make a serious start on ballot access.

But we're not closing our doors. We believe it is important to see our case against the FEC through (both for Unity08 and any similar movement in the future) and be ready to gear up if (when) we win our case and political circumstances warrant later this spring. Unity is in the air right now, and Mayor Bloomberg seems poised to run on his own (and the fact is that two independent candidacies wouldn't work) if the parties leave the sensible center open - but all this could change in a matter of weeks.

We still believe strongly that we have the right idea, but it just might (emphasize might because who knows what can happen in the next month) not be the right time. In the meantime, a sincere, profound thanks for your help, involvement and support so far and please keep pushin' - for the simple but very powerful idea that solutions to our nation's problems are going to take ideas and hard work from all sources, and that a political system whose stock-in-trade is division may well be the biggest problem of all.

Please know that you have already made a difference and are at the forefront of a movement that may yet save the country.

Robert Bingham
Angus King
Peter Ackerman
Zach Clayton
Lindsay Ullman

Board of Directors, Unity08

CIA confirms Ventura meeting occurred

by Tim Pugmire, Minnesota Public Radio

The St. Paul Pioneer Press offered a sneak peek Thursday Jesse Ventura's forthcoming book, "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me." In one excerpt, Ventura describes a post-inaugural meeting with CIA agents. He also claims a CIA operative was on the state payroll. Even a Ventura confidant is questioning the account. But the surprising revelations are at least partially true.

St. Paul, Minn. — Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a meeting at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement conference room.

Ventura's account of the meeting is detailed in an advance copy of his new book, which is scheduled for release in April. He claims the agents' questions focused how he campaigned for office, or as Ventura writes "how had the independent wrestler candidate pulled this off?"

Memories can fade after nine years, but a meeting with 23 CIA agents is something that might stand out. John Wodele, who served as Ventura's director of communications, said the meeting was news to him.

"I don't recall any indication that the governor had met with a CIA agent," he said. "Now, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I was not aware of it.

Turns out there actually was a Ventura meeting with the CIA in 1999. CIA Spokesman George Little confirmed the event today in a written statement, but he offered few details.

Little said that "on occasion CIA officers meet with senior state government officials, as they did in this case, to discuss issues of mutual interest."

"On occasion CIA officers meet with senior state government officials, as they did in this case, to discuss issues of mutual interest."

- CIA Spokesman George Little

Little shed less light on another revelation in Ventura's book. The former Independence Party governor says he was "stunned to learn that there is a CIA operative inside every state government." Ventura says the Minnesota operative was a deputy commissioner, who was working with a dual identity.

In response to a question about Ventura's claim, Little wrote, "I wouldn't think of CIA officers as being in state governments. They're federal employees."

John Wodele said it would seem unusual that a CIA agent would be working in state government.

"If that did happen, I'm not aware of it," he said. "And I guess that would be that way it should be. I think the CIA is supposed to operate that way, where directors of communication are not made aware."

CIA operations primarily focus on the collection and analysis of information about foreign threats to the United States. Domestic matters fall into the jurisdiction of the FBI.

Former Republican U.S. Sen. Dave Durenberger is questioning Ventura's claims. Durenberger, who spent eight years on the Senate intellegence committee, says he never heard of CIA operatives in state governments or agents grilling new governors.

"I cannot think of a reason why either the details of, or his personal experiences with how he got elected would do anything for understanding threats to the United States and to our national security policy presented by foreign agents," he said. "It doesn't jibe. Unless Jesse had another life that he either wrote about in this book or has yet to disclose to us prior to becoming our governor. It sort of like blows even my imagination to think of how this could be a reality."

CIA finances and personnel are classified. But Durenberger said he thinks the agency would be stretched to assign operatives to every state capitol and send 23 agents to attend the same meeting.

It's unclear whether the current administration has any dealings with the CIA. Brian McClung, a spokesman for Gov. Tim Pawlenty, said the governor talks on occasion with diplomatic, defense and intelligence officials. But he said Pawlenty does not comment on matters relating to intelligence.

Elaine Brown renounces Green Party of the United States

Elaine Brown
139 Altama Connector, No. 107
Brunswick, Georgia 31525
telephone/facsimile: 912-261-1799
email: sistaelaine AT gmail.com

For Immediate Release

Brunswick, Georgia,
December 28, 2007

ELAINE BROWN WITHDRAWS
FROM GREEN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL RACE

Renounces Green Party Membership
_____________________________

OPEN STATEMENT TO THE GREEN PARTY

As of today, I am no longer a candidate for the Green Party nomination for president of the United States, and I hereby resign from all affiliation with the Green Party. I believe the leadership of the Green Party of the United States has been seized by neo-liberal men who entrench the Party in internecine antagonisms so as to compromise its stated principles and frustrate its electoral and other goals. They have made it impossible to advance any truly progressive ideals or objectives under the umbrella of the Green Party, and, thus, rendered it counterproductive for me to go forward as a Green Party candidate or member.

I believe this small clique that has captured control of the Party has transformed it into a repository for erstwhile, disgruntled Democrats, who would violate the Party's own vision and sabotage the good will and genuine commitment of the general membership. Indeed, these usurpers foster a reactionary agenda, supporting partisans in and backers of the Bush wars and disavowing the Party's more progressive tenets in favor of promoting high-profile participation in the politics of the establishment.

This became clear to me almost from the moment I announced my candidacy in February of 2007. I intended using my campaign to bring large numbers of blacks and browns into the Party, particularly from the hood and the barrio—as would come to be reflected in the lists of supporters and delegates I've submitted in connection with my candidacy. As I asserted I would use the respect I enjoyed as a former leader of the Black Panther Party to do so, some in the hierarchy seemed utterly fearful of the prospect of a massive influx of blacks and browns into the Green Party. Soon, there was wide circulation of false rumors that I was a one-time "government agent," which was intended to discredit my history in the Black Panther Party so as to undermine my potential influence.—And, since then, I have had to devote significant time and energy to addressing these lies.—What this effort revealed, though, was how the Green Party, while advocating "diversity," remains dominated by whites. Indeed, the Party is able to count less blacks, browns and natives in its membership than our national population percentages and certainly less than the Democrats themselves.

In effect, the present Green Party leadership promotes a kinder, gentler capitalism, a moderated racism, an environmentally-sustainable globalism, which I cannot support. They are dedicated to the underside of the Party's platform, which falls short of repudiating the capitalist state, source of all the social ills the Party would address. They equivocate by promoting "an economic alternative to corporate capitalism and a socialist state," advocate a "re-formulation" of the IMF, NAFTA, so forth, and advance the institution of "stakeholder capitalism."

On the other hand, they demonstrate a willingness to override the best of the Party's platform. My sharp criticism of high-profile Party members' support for the "three-strikes" crime laws, the sole basis for the inhumane mass incarceration of people in the United States, particularly blacks—the repeal of which the Party's platform advocates—has been met with outright enmity. And, to divert attention from this and other critical issues, the leadership has employed chicanery in their promulgation of defamatory lies about me—which they finally extended to character assaults on my supporters and critics of their unscrupulousness.

It is my sincere belief that the Green Party as it now exists has no intention of using the ballot to actualize real social progress, and will aggressively repel attempts to do so. To remain in the fray or in the Party, then, would require a betrayal of my lifelong and ongoing commitment to serving the interests of black and other oppressed people by advancing revolutionary change in America.