RE: Campaign contributions

[Denise Hood <hoodsx3@aol.com>]

Jay brings up (again) an interesting point about 3rd party candidates. I know that I have tended to overlook 3rd parties in this discussion, and it is extremely difficult for me to say this, because I have been furious at the role played by Nader as a "spoiler" in the outcome of this past election. But I believe that more effort should be made to bring them into the whole equation. Let's face it! 3rd party candididates ARE currently "locked out" of the process, as we witnessed in the presidential debates. There's this whole "Qualifying" issue. If somehow we could figure out a way that 3rd party candidates could gain access, without the requirement of having to pull 5% of the vote. I believe that was Nader's MAIN motivation for staying in the race when he and his Green party knew beyond any reasonable doubt that he could NOT win the election. In spite of the Green Party rhetoric about Nader's determination to stay in the race because of there "not being any differences between the 2 parties or their candidates," which anyone knows is a bogus argument (which Nader's followers are right now in the process of finding out!), I think he stayed in the race to try to qualify for Federal Matching Funds for his 2004 campaign. The result? He STILL didn't get his 5%, thus not qualifying for the matching campaign funds, he was a major factor in Gore not becoming president, (a candidate who would have at LEAST supported much, if not MOST of the Green Party Platform), and created quite a furor in the process, which will probably only serve to FURTHER marginalize him as a viable candidate in 2004. 

The lesson here is we need to take a real close look at how 3rd party candidates campaigns are funded, and take some positive steps to "bring them into the process," without opening the floodgates to a rash of obscure candidates running, and diluting the process. And I certainly don't propose to know how that can be done.