[Marxism] THE MYSTERY OF THE 2004 ELECTIONS By Peter Miguel Camejo
mikedf at mail.amnh.org
Fri Jul 30 21:54:04 MDT 2004
July 29, 2004
Money vs. People
THE MYSTERY OF THE 2004 ELECTIONS
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
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