CE Week #9: “Ralph Nader Sues Democratic Party”
October 30, 2007
Consumer advocate and 2004 independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader sued the Democratic Party on Tuesday, contending officials conspired to keep him from taking votes away from nominee John Kerry.
Nader’s lawsuit, filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, also named as co-defendants Kerry’s campaign, the Service Employees International Union and several so-called 527 organizations such as America Coming Together, which were created to promote voter turnout on behalf of the Democratic ticket.
The lawsuit also alleges that the Democratic National Committee conspired to force Nader off the ballot in several states.
“The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters,” Nader said in a statement. “This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy.”
Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that the DNC tried to bankrupt Nader’s campaign by suing to keep him off the ballot in 18 states. It also suggests the DNC sent Kerry supporters to crash a Nader petition drive in Portland, Ore., in June 2004, preventing him from collecting enough signatures to get on the ballot.
The lawsuit seeks “compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from ongoing and future violations of the law.”
Nader’s attorney, Bruce Afran, argued that the DNC would be terrified of having the case come to trial. He said he hoped the committee would choose to settle the case and apologize.
“This is a case designed to make sure other independent and third party candidates will not be subject to the same kind of conspiracy in the future,” Afran said.
Nader received 463,653 votes in the election, or 0.38% of total votes cast.
DNC spokesman Luis Miranda declined comment on the suit, citing a policy on pending litigation.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/31/ce-week-9-ralph-nader-sues-democratic-party/trackback/
I really admire people that never quit, but Ralph Nader, just like Shaq, needs to learn to how to.
He never will win. If he wanted to win, he should have joined one of the major political parties rather than just running as an independent. He could have just run as a major party candidate, and done the same thing Barack Obama and maybe Ron Paul are doing: a seek for change. Third party candidates will never win the presidential election and he has NOTHING on the democratic party. I repeat, nothing. The democrats are going to win in a landslide this election after what Bush has done to our economy and civilians alike. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton are far ahead and it will stay this way unless something drastic happens. There is no plausible evidence that shows any Kerry supporter, or any member from the democratic national convention, rather, that would have even thought of messing with the Nader campaign. He oftentimes takes a lot of the Republican votes, and thus the Democrats would have no reason to sabotage such a campaign. Think about it: if they really did something to try and get Nader off the ballot, wouldn’t we have heard it on national news; CNN and FOX? I just see no case for Ralph Nader, although he is a respectable guy. He’s a sore loser that’s going to blame the republicans next.’
What is the purpose of this lawsuit? To me there really isn’t any. I mean Nader never stood a chance against Kerry and to sue for something as ridiculous as that is just stupid. I can see if there was a close election or if something really was a problem in the election, but claiming that Kerry stole votes from Nadar is pointless. It would not have mattered anyway! Third party candidates do need justice to be served to them, however this is ridiculous. If Nadar can get away with this lawsuit how many others could be filed? However, despite how dumb this seems to be on the surface the lawsuit does bring up a few good points. Kerry and the democratic party didn’t want votes going to the third party candidate because it would detract from Kerry’s votes. I think every candidate in both the republican and democratic party have right to be concerned about this, however if they are going to win it should not make a difference if they got those few extra votes. It’s hard, but they should make it by a landslide. It shows that the people would really want them. The people didn’t really want Nadar, so the few votes that he might have lost did not matter in the long run, and they did not aid Kerry either.
Yeah I believe it; the democratic party wants the white house so bad that I’m sure they could stoop to certain lows to get it, especially after the heart breaking 2000 election. In fact if they tried to sabotage Nader’s campaign it was probably because they were trying to prevent a similar event that happened to the democrats in the 2000 election. But then again at the same time Nader didn’t have a chance at claiming the presidency, in fact the democrats probably didn’t have to do anything to his campaign to focus attention on Kerry, Kerry already had enough of it. You know what now that I think about it I’m sort of humbled by this article, ill be glad if Nader wins his suit. I mean don’t get me wrong I support the Democratic party, but I’m also very cynical when it comes to politics and with all the recent uncovered corruption found within the republicans it’s a good reminder that the Democrats also get their hands dirty every once and a while… or maybe all the time as far as we know. But hey can you blame them? I mean they had to sit by and watch Bush’s embarrassing presidency knowing that if they had worked just a little bit harder, it would have maybe been them embarrassing themselves, who knows.
I think that this man is CRAZY! To think in the first place that he could win and then to sue the Democratic Party. First off I do not think that he has a place to sue them, they did nothing wrong! The whole point of campaigning it to take votes from the opponents! DUH! Bun not just that it is him just looking for some money so he can through it away in the next election! Can he not just accept the fact that he will never be president! This to me is just another one of things that are just people looking of a quick buck! Really if he wants to be president so bad why doesn’t he run under the democratic party and not be so left and crazy, other wise he should just through in the towel and cal it a day! This day in our history it seems as though it may be the best time for a third party candidate to win, but he has it needs to be a moderate not a crazy left wing freak! He just needs to come to the realization that it is over and just not try because he is just taking away votes that could help the Democratic Party win!
Dear Ralph Nader,
May I suggest dropping these charges before you do any further damage to your poor reputation? I mean I’m sure I would understand if you won a primary or received a large sum of votes. But you didn’t even get one percent. Actually, you didn’t even get half of one percent. I also find it quite amusing that these charges come out now, four years after it happened. If someone were to hit me in the face, I wouldn’t wait for years to get upset about it. I find it highly unreasonable for the Democrats to be plotting a master plan in order to take down your great campaign. They might have tried to sabotage you if you actually stood a chance at winning anything but third place. I might have just not been paying attention at the time, but wouldn’t a scandal as large as the Democratic party sending people to your petition party in order to prevent you from making the ballot make the news? I think people need to realize that these charges seem highly fabricated and they will definitely not hold up in any sort of court. But again, thank you Mr. Nader for providing us with some entertainment. If this doesn’t work out, you should consider professional wrestling
Wow. So I never thought I would hear this. I think that this is kind of a funny case in how Nader is kind of suing his own party. Also in the article it says that “This lawsuit was filed to help advance a free and open electoral process for all candidates and voters. Candidate rights and voter rights nourish each other for more voices, choices, and a more open and competitive democracy.”, although I have a hard time believing that he’s also not doing it for some own personal convictions. I think that Nader did actually make a difference in the 2004 election even with his .38% votes. More or less he took some votes away from both candidates. However this lawsuit I think is pointless to bring up what four years later when he didn’t even have a major role in the election. I mean come on. I think he’s doing it for the media attention; maybe because he is planning on running again I don’t know. All I know is that even though the Democratic Party might have done some of the things he alleges they did, either way he wasn’t going to win or be nominated by them. Give it up. Accept the loss like a man and move on please.
Well when I first read this article my first thought was how ridiculous this lawsuit sounded. I mean what would be accomplished if Nader won the lawsuit? It’s not like people will start voting for the third party. Even if the Democrats did not steal votes from Nader, it is not like he would have won the election. Also why would he file the lawsuit four years later? Isn’t it a little too late in the game to be suing for the 2004 election? How can a political party steal votes? The only way the Democrats stole votes from Nader is that they convinced the voters to vote for John Kerry. Isn’t that the point of campaigning, converting voters to vote for their party? I find it ridiculous!
I can see why the Democrats “stole” votes from Nader. They do not want a deja vu of the 2000 election. Al Gore lost the election because he lost some of his votes to Nader. If those votes would have gone to Al Gore then the Democrats would have won the presidency. They want to make sure that it never happens again. I think that Nader filed the lawsuit in order to give publicity to third parties. He wants third parties to receive more popular votes. It is all for publicity.
I am with Brian on the whole admiring people who never give up, although I’m not to sure where Shaq came from, but anyways there are certain things that you shouldn’t give up on and then there are things that you need to give up on. As for Ralph Nader, he just needs to end things, nothing is going to change. He lost four years ago and is now bringing everything up. I honestly think that he is just making a fool of himself by bringing out this lawsuit. I mean he only received .38% of the total votes cast. It’s kind of like Connor said where if he were a bigger candidate and actually stood a chance to possibly win, then maybe his whole “issue” would be a little less ridiculous. The Democratic Party has more important things to do with there campaign, such as compete with their real competition, then to mess with a little guy like Nader. I really think that this lawsuit is pointless and nothing is going to come out of it for Nader. – Matt Powles
Well after reading this article, I can only laugh. I personally think it’s hilarious that people and state governments are trying to remove Nader from the ballots. Absolutely hilarious. I really wasn’t surprised when I read the people no longer wanted Nader on their ballots anymore. His name is a waste of ink, space, and votes. I only say this because the man has been trying to run for President of the United States . . . his entire life. I salute him for having so much confidence and persistence, but honestly. I hate to tell you Ralph, but it’s time buddy. I found it odd that he would sue his own party. You just don’t see that unless the candidate doesn’t expect to win. Nader claims “The Democratic Party is going after anyone who presents a credible challenge to their monopoly over their perceived voters.” It’s funny that people will stretch things so far just to gain either one, a little money, or two, a little power. No Ralph. Basically, we’re all tired of seeing your name on those ballots every freaking Presidential election.
With what Megan was saying, what is the point of this lawsuit? I understand that Nader feels that he should be allowed all the votes he deserves, but it is not going to change anything that Kerry stole a few of them. The difference in votes and the fact that Nader will eventually get the boot, is not worth having a lawsuit over. With Nader’s 0.38% votes, the whole thing seems a little ridiculous. Third parties don’t get that much attention or that many votes. I can see where the left and right side might be a little worried or feel like they are losing votes to the third parties, but both the Democrats and the Republicans are mainly just voting against each other, the third parties are just another option for people to vote. So I understand everything that was going on, but like Megan said, the whole lawsuit seemed to be missing a point.
Ridiculous
First of all, Nader only received “463,653 votes in the election, or 0.38% of total votes cast.” and I am pretty sure that there is no realistic way that he would have received enough votes to win anything regardless of whether or not the Democratic National Party was able to “steal” some of the votes cast for him. Secondly, I think that it is totally unreasonable for Nader to attempt to sue the Democratic Party for monetary gains. Although if it is true that the DNP did sabotage the Nader campaign, then I do think that it is right that Nader take legal action to ensure that “other independent and third party candidates will not be subject to the same kind of conspiracy in the future,”. I think that this case will definitely bear watching , and it will be very interesting to see if the two sides settle out of court, or if the Democrats will fight this as hard as they can. I don’t know whether or not a court ruling would have much significant, since many people are currently using the judicial system for groundless cases, and unfortunately many groundless suits are being one by the accusers. It really makes you think.
Andrew Barnes
I think Brian is wrong. I also admire people who never give up no matter what. Look at President Lincoln if he were to ever give up we would never be calling him president Lincoln would we. I really admire third part candidates; they have no chance of winning, but still put themselves out there and say what they have to say. our system is impartial and I think will be fixed soon. I also disagree that the Democratic Party is going to win in a landslide. Though Bush has destroyed our country and the Republican Party there are many good candidates running in the Republican Party that will bring it to new heights and could be elected. What I don’t get is why the Democratic Party would care if Nader ran. This would help the Democratic Party win in landslide because Ralph Nader would pull votes away from the Republican Party.
I really admire that Nader is not just pushing away say that the Democratic Party is stronger and giving up. The thing is Hilary is ahead in the Democratic polls and Rudy is ahead in the republican polls. So far it look like the democrats will win, but that is because people disagree with what Bush has done. Can we really afford to leave Iraq like the democrats want to do? This is a question like many others that will determine who will win the 2008 election.
Yes, go NADER! GREEN PARTY FOREVER! WOO-HOO!!!
Okay. So… apartently most of us agree that he wasn’t going to win the election anyways. I agree with Kirk mostly. I don’t doubt that the Democrats did any of this. I also think Nader should sue their butts off if he can. If these allogations are true then he has every right to. Then it is the democrats bad because they just made fools of themselves because they were screwing with his campaign. It just goes to show how desperate the Democrat got in that election. I agree with Chad that his nomination is completely insignificant. However, I agree with him on a lot of policies and like Nader and if he had a chance of winner and ran I’d vote for him. However, he doesn’t have a chance, he has tried for too many years (since my dad heard him speak politics in the late 70s) and should retire to a life of reading the newpaper and badmouthing other politicians.
Shauna, Nader is part of the Green Party, which is not related to the Democrats at all and therefor he isn’t “kind of suing his own party”. In fact Democrats mostly hate Nader with a firery passion because of the democratic loss in close elections while he’s been running. He dramatically affected the outcome because if he hadn’t one many people probably would have voted for Kerry instead. Also Shauna it isn’t that unbelievable. They are politicians… they sue everyone they can even if they don’t need the money.
Response to Rory and Powells:
First of all, yes Powells, I was just looking for an example and nothing came to mind, and thus Shaq. But I guess that Brett Favre would have been a much better metaphor.
Anyways, it seems as if Nader’s in the race for all the wrong reasons; similar to that of Kucinich. He seems to be in the race simply for the fact that he would like to take votes away from other candidates.
As for Rory, Lincoln was not a third party candidate. He was nothing of the sort. He was thought of as the favorite to get the nod, and thus, none of your logic about Lincoln applies here. And our system will not soon be fixed. It takes many of years to make even a simple reform which is easily widely acceptable in America.
You say that the GOP has it, but where do you get this point that the Republicans actually have a viable candidate. The leader is a Democrat, turned independent, turned Republican. Like an earlier article pointed out, the Republicans have no winning candidate.
Yes, it is true that the grand Old Party is suffering from Bush’s policies, but things wont turn around by the time the next election rolls around unless something drastic happens.
Ok, for some reason I have to disagree with basically everyone except Vanessa! I feel that what Nader is doing is good. I think this might actually open up opinions to people who did not know much about Independents. I do agree when everyone says Nader was not going to win the election, however it seems he should still have a fair chance. Even if it does seem like he is just wasting his money, cause some people say there is no point. If Nader suing the Democratic National Convention turns out to be a big deal it could actually really be a step forward for any Independent candidates to come. I think if Nader suing turns out to be a big deal it could also detract people from the democrats and the republicans might actually get elected again, it could also leave a bad lasting effect for the Democratic Party. However, this is highly unlikely who know. I just think it is good the Nader is actually doing something so he will have just as much of a chance as any body else. It really could have a big impact on the strength of the Independent Party in future elections.
I honestly think that Nader needs to get over himself and learn that nobody really cares. This whole issue just seems like an excuse for him to try to get some media attention and makes him look really bad. Why exactly would anybody conspire to do that anyway? Either way, I find it hard to take him seriously, no matter what his deal is. I am pretty sure Democratic officials would not even waster their time on a candidate such as Nader, not to mention I cannot see the party partaking in anything of this sort with any other candidate. Even if some conspiracy did occur, it wouldn’t have made much of a difference without one. Nader ran as a third party candidate and we all know that they never really stand a chance of actually winning the election, they’re just there to possibly affect the outcome. What I want to know is why did he just bring this up? The election was three, almost four, years ago and after he lost nobody heard much from him. Like Brian said, he really is just acting like a sore loser and I really cannot see much becoming of this “conspiracy” charge.
response to Caitlin:
Yeah I agree with Caitlin, Nadar needs to get a life. I mean what is he going to get out of this? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!! This does make him look bad. If he’s in that dire of need for media attention it shows that no one really cares about him anyway and the little bit that he does get will not make a difference in the long run because no one has or ever will seriously care about Nadar because he never has or will be a serious competitor for the Presidency. However, I disagree with Caitlin on the democratic party. I can believe that there might have been some form of conspiracy. Nadar was taking votes from Kerry. Votes that democrats would say, could have made the election. They realized Nadar’s important role in the election and were smart enough to realize that they could not underestimate, or surpass the electors that supported him. They were all voters that could have supported Kerry. In response to Caitlin’s question, I think Nadar might have surfaced this information now because the primaries are coming up. It makes the democratic party look weak and Nadar look stronger. If the democratic party was worried about him in the last election that means that his votes counted for something. This could give him more attention in the upcoming elections and detract votes in the primaries from major democratic candidates. Just a thought.
Before this article, I have never read anything about the Democrats trying to sabotage Ralph Nader’s campaign. During elections, the media swarms to anything that might create chaos. If the sabotaging really occurred, why did it not come to the surface during the election? I disagree with the people who say that the Democratic Party should be sued. Politics are not exactly fair, but the Democrats did what they could to eliminate Nader, the third party candidate, from the election without breaking the rules. The third party threw off the votes in the 2000 election and the Democrats needed to make sure that they would not lose votes. Trying to get a person off a ballot is within the rights of the Democratic Party or any party. Yes, it is cheap, but it is allowed. Also, there is no possible way that Nader could support his accusation that the Democratic National Committee sent people to crash his event. There are so many people that are so into politics and their candidate that they go crazy and try to crash events. The event could have been crashed by crazy Kerry supporters instead of crazy Kerry supporters sent to destroy his petition drive. While I would not consider myself a Democrat, I still believe that the Democratic Party did nothing wrong. As long as the big parties have plenty of money, the third parties are going to be given a hard time. Big parties are good about following the rules while still being a bully to the underdog. Ralph Nader is trying to fight for the underdogs, but he doesn’t have a case.
In this case I am going to have to agree with Connor. Ralph Nader needs to stop doing damage to himself, and not follow through with the lawsuit he is presenting. The fact that he needs to get over is that he was not very popular. If you receive less than one half percent of the vote, then you deserve not to be represented in 18 states. What is going to happen if he wins this lawsuit? He might get money and the apology he wants, but he won’t be president, so what is the relevance of it, is he trying to protect other third party candidates and be some kind of hero? No he is just pulling a stupid publicity stunt that probably won’t work, and he will just be laughed at in the political world. Ralph Nader I am sorry but give up, you lost let the future present itself, and save you from neither embarrassment that you don’t want nor need. There is no conspiracy happening, and even if there was it would be in the past. This is all just a big publicity stunt to try to protect the third party candidates, but honestly why protect them if they are going to do something stupid like this, maybe they deserve the embarrassment they will get.
Reply to Megan V.
The point of the lawsuit is that Nader felt that he was unlawfully prejudiced against in the 2004 election, and it seems like he was. Obviously the Democratic party wants to do everything in their power to ensure that their candidate receives the majority of the votes but using illegal means to make sure an independent or third party candidate doesn’t receive any of their destined votes seems unreasonable to me.
We live in American, the land of the free and the home of the brave where you can sue McDonald’s for millions of dollars for spilling their coffee on yourself. Nader can sue the Democrat party for something he believes to be unjust and I think he has good reason to.
Also, you claimed that Nader never stood a chance and whether I agree with you or not he stood even less of a chance against Kerry and Bush because of the abuses by the Democratic Party. Ensuring that he wouldn’t even get on a ballot in a few states seems like a serious abuse of power to me and one that should be addressed with a lawsuit. I’d be curious to see what would happen if the case went to a jury but as the article said it probably wont and we’ll probably only hear of a small settlement made by the party in the end.
I have to disagree with Brian Freeland; I think that Nader has every right to do what he’s doing. Sure, Nader has run in the elections a few times but hey, he won’t stop until he wins. He knows all the dirty tricks of politics and is suing for, well that I am not really sure of, but hey go for it Nader, you’re unstoppable. I don’t think he should stop running, I mean sure running as a third party candidates usually leaves you a very slim chance of ever getting noticed or elected. But, it adds a very important factor into the presidential race. It takes away votes from presidential candidates, which can swing the election tremendously. I mean think about the things that wouldn’t have come to pass if it wasn’t for third party candidates. Back in the 2000 election, Nader took some crucial votes in Florida away from Al Gore. There has been speculation that if those voters cast their vote for Gore, and if they voted for Nader because of his policies than they would have, Gore would have become president. Thank goodness Nader did run in 2000 and take those crucial votes away from Gore or else we would never have our wonderful everlasting war on terror and every country in the world wouldn’t hate us. It’s a good thing Nader ran, and it’s a good thing that every 3rd party candidate does run because it keeps us on our toes and it keeps our government interesting. So Mr. Nader, don’t you dare listen to Brian, you sue those mean Democrats and you keep running for president, maybe one of these days you will win Alaska.
I have to disagree with Brian. Although Nader may not be the best or worthy candidate for president he still has a right to run just like the other candidates. That includes not being tormented and screwed over by the Democratic National Committee. If you say he is so awful then there really shouldn’t be any problem with him running for president. Supposedly: “The democrats are going to win in a landslide this election after what Bush has done to our economy and civilians alike.” Ralph Nader may be a hopeless case and his law suite may be just as hopeless and pointless, but he deserves to have the equal opportunity of running just like everyone else. We all know that he took some very crucial votes away from Al Gore in the 2000 election. I’m sure that is probably a good reason why the Democratic National Committee is trying so hard to get rid of him. And in a sense I can see why they would want to. He did pretty much ruin the win for the Democrats, but hey that is politics. Third Party candidates are not likely to win anyways and Clinton and Obama are so far ahead of everyone else that I think Nader’s chance of winning is very slim. Just because Nader hasn’t realized how bad he really is yet, does not mean he can’t play the game with the big boys. Go on Nader play!
My response is to Brian Freeland, who has obviously caused quite a bit of controversy with his comment! I, like half the class, disagree with what he has said about the Independent candidate Ralph Nader. I think that independent parties are necessary for our presidential campaigns. Now, I know that independent parties don’t win and take away from their own party, but it is a freedom of speech to run. If we look back on what our country and government was founded on, the Constitution, anyone has the right to run! If they have the money to run and declare their campaign early enough, then they have the right, Brian!
If the Democrats win, then they do! But the thing is, we can’t blame Nader for the Republican’s win. I don’t really think he has means to sue the Democratic party, because like you said, we’d probably know about it, but he still has a right to run…which you seem to state he doesn’t. I just think it’s how the political system works! It just is. And also, your whole comment at the end is totally uncalled for and makes your entire post lose its credibility! Sorry, but it makes you seem far more unintelligent than you really are, I’m sure.
I agree with most people who posted on this article in that I think it is a bit ridiculous that Ralph Nader feels the need to sue the Democratic Party when he had no real chance of winning the election. I also think it is pretty stupid that he feels the need to sue the party that will probably (at some point in time) do more for the environment, which was the goal of his Green Party. I agree with Kirk in that the Democratic Party wants the White House terribly and would be willing to stoop to using dirty tricks to get there. I wouldn’t be surprised if, like Nader’s attorney is hoping, this settles out of court. The Democrats will probably want to get out of this with as little media coverage as possible, especially before the upcoming election.
And Mr. Freeland, I’m sorry to say that, like Powles, I think Shaq isn’t a very good example of someone who needs to learn how to quit and I don’t think Brett Favre is a good example either. His Packers have been off to a pretty strong start. Maybe Michael Jordan during the Wizards era is a better example.
Brian Baker