Nader Campaign Says It Qualifies for Funds

[MtnBiker]

By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites) raised about $600,000 in the two months since he announced his candidacy, enough money to qualify for federal matching funds and well ahead of the fund-raising pace he set four years ago, his campaign announced Wednesday.


In papers filed with Federal Election Commission (news - web sites), Nader said roughly 60 percent of that amount had been donated over the Internet.


To receive matching funds, a candidate must raise at least $5,000 in 20 states in donations of $250 or less. Nader has collected more than $5,000 from 23 different states. About 91 percent of his donations have been under $100.


"Unlike the major-party candidates we are not dialing for corporate dollars," Nader said in a statement. "We are seeking a broad base of support among the people."


The money pales in comparison to the millions being raised by Nader's major-party rivals, but it is enough to allow him to campaign as seriously as he did in 2000, when he received 2.7 percent of the vote. Much of the money raised will pay coordinators to oversee gathering signatures in Nader's quest to get on the ballots in all 50 states.
Full Story

 

[nycflasher]

Go Ralph!

Say what you will but how can you not have some respect for the ONE guy you can't accuse of being in the pocket of big business.

I love the underdog.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Go Ralph!

Say what you will but how can you not have some respect for the ONE guy you can't accuse of being in the pocket of big business.

I love the underdog.

Hes got a good spirit, but i dont agree with his ideas. So i wouldnt vote for him even if he was a candidate for one of the Big 2.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by insein
Hes got a good spirit, but i dont agree with his ideas. So i wouldnt vote for him even if he was a candidate for one of the Big 2.

Well I'm glad you like his spirit, if not his ideas. He really is one of the nicest politicians out there. And dedicated. Here are a couple things I like about him, just for arguments sake:

1) Ralph is really a man of the people. He is American's most renowned and effective crusader for the rights of consumers and the general public. Nader is widely recognized as the founder of the consumers' rights movement. He played a key role in the creation of the EPA, the OSHA, the Freedom of Information Act and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He has continued to work for consumer safety and for the reform of the political system through his group Public Citizen.


2)And just because it isa so dramatic of a compoarison, look at his academic record vs. Bush. Nader entered the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs at Princeton University. Graduating magna cum laude in 1955, with a major in government and economics, Nader enrolled in Harvard Law School. He became an editor of the Harvard Law Review, and after graduating with honors, set up a small legal practice...

Hard to argue with those credentials. Just thought I'd mention them. I'm not saying that's all it takes to be a good President, I'm just saying it's proof of a guy with intelligence, determination and a commitment to the public interest.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Well I'm glad you like his spirit, if not his ideas. He really is one of the nicest politicians out there. And dedicated. Here are a couple things I like about him, just for arguments sake:

1) Ralph is really a man of the people. He is American's most renowned and effective crusader for the rights of consumers and the general public. Nader is widely recognized as the founder of the consumers' rights movement. He played a key role in the creation of the EPA, the OSHA, the Freedom of Information Act and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He has continued to work for consumer safety and for the reform of the political system through his group Public Citizen.


2)And just because it isa so dramatic of a compoarison, look at his academic record vs. Bush. Nader entered the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs at Princeton University. Graduating magna cum laude in 1955, with a major in government and economics, Nader enrolled in Harvard Law School. He became an editor of the Harvard Law Review, and after graduating with honors, set up a small legal practice...

Hard to argue with those credentials. Just thought I'd mention them. I'm not saying that's all it takes to be a good President, I'm just saying it's proof of a guy with intelligence, determination and a commitment to the public interest.

Dang, you would think a guy with those credentials would understand why capitalism works and wouldnt be so contrary to it.

 

[nycflasher]

He-he.
Different strokes for different folks...

And that is not a porno

 

[MtnBiker]

Nader's effect in this campaign may not be the percentage of the votes he receives but the position he takes. It will force Kerry to continue to target the far left perhaps at the expense of the moderate vote.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Nader's effect in this campaign may not be the percentage of the votes he receives but the position he takes. It will force Kerry to continue to target the far left perhaps at the expense of the moderate vote.

And that will give moderates only one choice: the compassionate conservative Bush.

Run Ralph Run!!!

 

[Palestinian Jew]

compassionate conservative Bush.

lol, fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.

I like Nader and think he is the best of the three, but a vote for him is a vote for Bush, so I'll stick with Kerry.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I like Nader and think he is the best of the three, but a vote for him is a vote for Bush, so I'll stick with Kerry.

Excellent reasoning for deciding who to run the USA.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Excellent reasoning for deciding who to run the USA.

Believe me, I know its awful, but I'm faced with 2 terrible candidates and have to chose the lesser evil.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I like Nader and think he is the best of the three, but a vote for him is a vote for Bush, so I'll stick with Kerry.

You actually say quite alot with that statement. PJ I believe you are politicaly motivated and will surely vote in November. However there are some democratic likely voters who will choose not to vote at all. They may not be pleased with Bush but are less motivated by Kerry to go to the polls.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Excellent reasoning for deciding who to run the USA.

I think if you don't like your current leader, NOT voting for him is just as effective as voting for someone else.

I mean, I get your point but if the alternative is not voting at all... I just don't see that as an alternative.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I think if you don't like your current leader, NOT voting for him is just as effective as voting for someone else.

I mean, I get your point but if the alternative is not voting at all... I just don't see that as an alternative.

Whatever happened to just voting for who you think is the best candidate? I hope our political leaders don't vote in congress with this type of thinking. People need to have beliefs and stick with them, not play party to the political games.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you libs like Nader so much. Why not just screw Kerry and all vote Nader this year.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
If you libs like Nader so much. Why not just screw Kerry and all vote Nader this year.

That would be great if the Sane part of the democratic party actually voted an masse for Nader as a sign that they want their party back. IT would never happen, but it would be a sight to see.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
If you libs like Nader so much. Why not just screw Kerry and all vote Nader this year.

Well, I voted for him in 2000.
I guess, to answer your question, becasuse I don't see the point in voting for someone who doesn't have a CHANCE to win.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Whatever happened to just voting for who you think is the best candidate?

I think both Nader and Kerry are better choices than Bush. So I will be voting for one of them.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I think both Nader and Kerry are better choices than Bush. So I will be voting for one of them.

That wasn't what we were discussing. PJ said he thought Nader was the best candidate, but yet he isn't voting for who he thinks is the best candidate. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Well, I voted for him in 2000.
I guess, to answer your question, becasuse I don't see the point in voting for someone who doesn't have a CHANCE to win.

So you would vote for someone that you feel less qualified because others are voting for someone else?