[Marxism] THE MYSTERY OF THE 2004 ELECTIONS By Peter Miguel Camejo

Mike Friedman mikedf at mail.amnh.org
Fri Jul 30 21:54:04 MDT 2004

July 29, 2004
Money vs. People

By Peter Miguel Camejo

There is a mystery to the 2004 presidential election; a silence has fallen 
on America regarding a glaring contradiction. As we enter the second half 
of 2004, there is massive popular opposition to the war in Iraq and to the 
USA PATRIOT Act -- possibly a majority of Americans. Yet these same people 
are about to vote in overwhelming numbers for John Kerry for President.

But John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, gave President Bush 18 
standing ovations in January, voted for the war, say the war was right, 
insist on continuing the occupation of Iraq against it peoples desires, 
want to increase the number of troops and Nations occupying Iraq, voted for 
"unconditional support to Bush" for his conduct of the war, and backed Bush 
by voting against the US Constitution for the US Patriot Act.

The only explanation for tens of millions voting against their heart felt 
opinions is the lack of free elections in America. There are no runoff 
elections. Without runoffs people are trapped. They fear expressing their 
true opinions. If they vote for what they are for they are told they will 
only elect Bush. They must learn to vote against themselves, to accept the 
con game of a two-party system. People are taught not to vote FOR what they 
believe but AGAINST an individual.

An unpopular policy once identified with an individual can be continued by 
replacing the individual, keeping the policy with modifications. In 
replacing Bush, Kerry pledges to more effectively forward the same policy 
of imperial domination.

If run off elections existed tens of millions would vote against both Bush 
and Kerry and for peace. Once the myth of invulnerability of the two-party 
system is broken the dam against democracy and free elections will break. 
Already 25% of Americans are no longer registered Democratic or Republican, 
they seek alternatives.

The Democrats' fear of Ralph Nader is rooted in the programmatic conflict 
between their Party's stance and their supporters. This is the real story 
of the 2004 elections.

This mystery is never written about in the media - - it is America's dark 

The 2000 presidential election was stolen when some 60,000 people, 
primarily African Americans, had their right to vote illegally revoked in 
Florida. The film, Fahrenheit 911, opens showing one African American 
Congressperson after another asking for an investigation. But their cry for 
justice was squashed because not one Senator, not one Democrat, not Paul 
Wellstone, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, or John Edwards would 
defend democracy, stand up for free elections.

Three and a half years later the Democratic Party has not lifted a finger 
to establish free elections in America. Not in a single State have they 
called for runoffs so Florida could never happen again. They could not make 
it clearer, the Democratic Party prefers that Republicans win elections, 
even without majority support, rather than allow free elections where a 
third party or an independent candidate could attract tens of millions from 
their base. Their

answer is simple: Ralph Nader must not run, must not be an alternative.

If free elections were held with a runoff system like in most civilized 
nations, if proportional representation existed where if a point of view 
receives 20% of the vote its supporters would receive
20% representation, then every vote would count, and the Democratic Party 
as we know it today would no longer exist. The one hundred million people 
who never vote would have a reason to vote. New parties would appear and a 
representative democracy would begin to blossom in America.

Ralph Nader has created a small hole in the dam. The danger is real. The 
Democrats are on an all out effort to attack the Nader/Camejo campaign 
because if voters begin to vote for what they want the entire electoral 
system would begin to unravel. If twenty million citizens voted for Nader 
it would be the beginning of the end of the two-party system. The Democrats 
would enter into a crisis, the ability of money to control people would 
begin to crack and the possibility of a democracy where citizens could vote 
for what they believe would be born. The Democrats are determined, not to 
beat Bush but to stop Nader, to protect the two party pro-corporate rule 
that America lives under.

That is what is behind all the talk of the miniscule funding by Republican 
citizens of Nader/Camejo. It is part of a relentless attack against free 
elections and the first amendment of the bill of rights.

This is why the Democrats have organized a nation wide "hate Nader" 
campaign. They seek to obfuscate the issues. They seek to prevent the right 
of citizens to vote for Nader by preventing Nader even his right to be on 
the ballot. State by state thousands of citizens sign petitions to place 
Nader on the ballot; state by state the Democrats harass, seek 
technicalities to challenge the signatures, and try to prevent allowing the 
people a choice that is pro-peace.

The attack on Nader by the San Francisco Chronicle with a banner front page 
article claiming Republicans are funding Nader is just one part of an 
on-going campaign. In spite of the relentless attacks against Nader the 
polls continue to show ten million people behind Nader/Camejo.

Wealthy Democrats and Republicans both cross finance their campaigns. It is 
standard practice for corporations to donate to both. Republicans donate 
millions to the Democrats. The very corporations that Democrats supposedly 
oppose, Enron, Halliburton, and Exxon, for example, all give funds to 
Kerry/Edwards. Kerry/Edwards have no plans to return a penny of their 
Republican or corporate backing.

These corporate/ lobbyist funds are not really contributions. They are 
investments or bribes with an expected return of access and policy, 
precisely like the Kerry/Edwards call for lower taxes on corporations. This 
kind of contribution dominates the financing of Bush and Kerry as well as 
most major party candidates for Congress and Senate.

Corporations once paid 33% of the taxes received by the federal government. 
Now they pay under 8%, yet Kerry/Edwards are promising to lower their taxes 
further in spite of the half trillion federal

deficit per year and the increasingly regressive taxes on working people.

Against this domination of money over people stand Ralph Nader and the 
Nader/Camejo campaign.

The Nader/Camejo campaign is seeking votes from all citizens, Democrats, 
Independents, Republicans, Greens and Libertarians.

Just as we seek their votes we ask all of them to help fund our campaign 
that opposes the war in Iraq, the US Patriot Act, and defends the health 
and well being of our working people.

We especially ask for donations for the right to be on the ballot and for 
free elections in the United States, elections that respect the will of the 
voters, that favor runoffs (instant run off voting) and proportional 

Most working people never give funds to any candidate. Those who do 
occasionally give to a candidate have no anticipation of personal financial 
gain. It is that kind of donor that represents the overwhelming majority of 
contributions to Nader/Camejo. The bulk of our contributions are in amounts 
below 100 dollars per person.

The Nader/Camejo campaign does not accept funds from Exxon, Enron or 
Halliburton as Kerry/Edwards do. We do not accept funding from corporations!

We ask that Kerry/Edwards stop their hypocritical campaign about the 
miniscule funding we have received from citizens registered Republican. We 
ask they stop their campaign against the American voters seeking to deny 
them a choice at the ballot box by allowing ballot access and an 
opportunity for voters who support Nader/Camejo to vote for them.

We, like all other candidates, do not, can not and will not give donors lie 
detectors to ascertain their objectives in funding our campaign.

We have proposed a simple solution to the funding issue. Establish public 
funding of all campaigns to create fairness and end corruption. 
Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney oppose public funding.

The choice is clear. Continue a corrupt electoral system that closes 
choices, forces citizens to vote against their conscious and allows money 
to control people -- or open up the electoral system, defend civil 
liberties and establish free elections.


This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from 

More information about the Marxism mailing list