2

Ruminations of a
Third Party Operative

I can tell you a lot about starting a new political party-far more than you may ever want to know. For example, I can tell you how many volunteers you will need standing in the parking lots of how many Wal-Marts in how many Texas towns each collecting how many signatures to pass the threshold of 43,963 valid signatures required to put your candidate on the ballot in that state.

I can tell you how to plan a campaign stop in, say, Cleveland, to get the most media coverage. (Press conferences are risky. If there is a fire downtown you are out of luck-that's a much better photo op. Lectures in university political science classes always seem to attract newspaper reporters. Check the President's itinerary, and don't send your candidate there if he's in town. Trust me, no one will show.)

I can point out the laws passed by Republican and Democratic-run legislatures in almost every state just to keep new parties and independent candidates off the ballot and out of the political debate-and to make your job as impossible as possible.

And I can tell you that even if what I say does not particularly interest you right now, it will soon. Because the way the two main parties are discrediting themselves in the public eye, within the next one or two election cycles, third parties are going to be a confounding, if not altogether revolutionary, force in America.

Who am I to tell you so much about third parties? As the press secretary for the Natural Law Party-the fastest growing new party in America- I have worked for the past six years with an ever-expanding cadre of friends and colleagues to build what we hope will be the next generation, mainstream political party in America. We started late in 1992 and against considerable odds we are making remarkable headway. In 1996, we ran 400 candidates on the ballot in 48 states-a huge accomplishment for a new party. We had little money for paid advertising so we relied primarily on word-of-mouth, and it worked-for now. Together our candidates totalled several million votes. Dr. John Hagelin, a Harvard-trained quantum physicist and our presidential candidate, was the only third party presidential candidate to qualify for federal primary matching funds (about a half a million dollars), a feat not even Ross Perot accomplished and a testimony to John Hagelin's broadbased, grassroots support. And we have developed a platform that most Americans, when they hear about it, endorse.

Many die-hard Republicans and Democrats say that we (and all third parties) have an impossible task, but the times are on our side, and we are bullish about our future.

To give you a better idea of what I do and to introduce you to the Natural Law Party and what we stand for, I offer these five brief episodes that took place during four days in Washington, D.C., October 7-10, 1997.

"USA Today Is Here"

Tuesday, October 7, 1:00 P.M. I am standing in the back of a room at the National Press Club, keeping out of the line of sight of a television camera crew. The room is small and stuffy, with about 40 people jammed into chairs facing a podium in the front, or squeezed in at the back, standing up in the doorway. We needed a larger room for this news conference, I say to myself. Assembled in the front are the leaders of America's largest third parties, representing the votes of nearly 10 million Americans during the 1996 election, and the sentiments, I believe of tens of millions more.

This the first time in U.S. political history that the leaders of third parties have united with a common cause: to push for sweeping campaign and election law reforms. The event has been organized by the Natural Law Party and the press turnout has been good, larger than I expected, considering that there is a campaign finance scandal in progress, and Harold Ickes, one of President Clinton's closest aides, is testifying on Capitol Hill.

John Hagelin, the Natural Law Party's presidential candidate in 1996, is at the podium, introducing the other leaders who stand in a semi-circle behind him: Ralph Nader of the Green Party, Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party, Howard Phillips of the U.S. Taxpayer Party, and Russ Verney, representing Ross Perot of the Reform Party.

It strikes me, amidst the frenzy of a news conference, that this is a good day for the Natural Law Party and a great day for democracy.

Each political leader at the podium has set aside his own ideological differences to support two bills introduced by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican from Surfside, Texas, who wants to overturn election laws and debate regulations that keep independent and third party candidates out of the political arena.

The obstacles are significant and outrageous, when you consider that they were enacted by Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Here are a few: An independent or third-party presidential candidate must collect 701,089 valid signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states, which is 28 times the number needed by a Democratic Party presidential candidate, and 13 times the number needed by a Republican. Third party candidates also have to meet sizeable discriminatory filing fees, filing deadlines, and restrictions on who can circulate and who can sign the petition-regulations that are not required of the major parties.

Paul's Voter Freedom Act of 1997 (H.R. 2477) would set fair and uniform ballot access standards for federal elections, and prohibit states from erecting excessive ballot access barriers. The Debates Freedom Act of 1997 (H.R. 2478) would prohibit recipients of taxpayer-funded campaign matching funds from participating in debates to which all qualified candidates are not invited. Any presidential candidate who is on the ballot in at least 40 states, is guaranteed inclusion in the debates.

Everyone, of course, speaks eloquently and with considerable passion in support of the bills, but Ralph Nader's comments stick with me throughout the day. Ralph can see that there is a good media turnout, but he is not overly impressed.

"In 1920, America's black leadership held a major news conference in Washington, D.C., to call attention to the unfair and discriminatory laws that blacks must overcome to participate in the political process," Nader says. "The Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal did not attend that news conference. The parallels are striking between black participation in the political process then and third party participation today. I would like to ask now, is anyone here from The Washington Post, New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal?" There is a painful moment of silence when no one answers, until Andrea Stone, who covers third party politics for USA Today offers, "Well, USA Today is here."

"It Shouldn't Be Easy to Exclude Third Parties"

Wednesday, October 8, 11:45 A.M. I am standing on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court and, very fortunately, today is not a hot and muggy day, because I am in the midst of a crush of media. Television camera crews, photographers, and print reporters balancing tape recorders and note pads are all jockeying for position. Their target: Ralph Forbes, a boyish-faced, heavy-set, middle-aged man from Arkansas who has become a thorn in the side of public television.

Forbes is suing Arkansas Public Television because the station refused to let him participate in a televised debate it sponsored during the 1992 campaign. Ralph was an independent candidate for U.S. Congress in Arkansas' Third District. He was a legitimate candidate in the eyes of the state--he had gathered the necessary petition signatures to put his name the ballot. In fact, two years earlier, in a 1990 statewide race, Ralph received 47% of the vote. But Ralph was not a Republican or a Democrat, so the editorial staff at the station decided Ralph was not really legitimate, had little chance of winning the election, and therefore barred him from the debate.

Forbes took Arkansas Public Television to court, and lost. He didn't go away. He appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and won. His argument was simple. Commercial television is privately-owned, must concern itself with ratings, and must answer to advertisers. Therefore commercial television may make an excuse for not inviting every candidate to its debate. But public television is government-owned and is under no such constraints. The journalists who work for public television are government employees and they should not be the editor-in-chief for America's 180 million eligible voters, deciding what ideas, candidates, and political parties are worth hearing about and what are not. That is the right and responsibility of the American people.

(Certainly you cannot have 50 or 100 candidates participating in a publicly-sponsored debate. There has to be some criterion to determine what makes a candidate viable. But such a criterion is already in place: Getting on the ballot. If a candidate is able to surmount the considerable obstacles to ballot access put into place by state lawmakers, then let him or her talk.)

The Court of Appeals agreed with Ralph Forbes, overturning the lower court's decision. Arkansas Public Television disagreed with the new ruling, appealed to the Supreme Court, and that's why I am here today.

It is my job to host Ralph Forbes for his court appearance. The case is a big one. Several hours before the 10:00 a.m. hearing, there is a line of 200 or more people, many of them law students, stretched across the courtyard in front of the Supreme Court steps, waiting for a chance to get in for a five-minute glimpse of the case in process.

The hearing goes surprisingly well. I am sitting next to Ralph in the audience, and his face is registering waves of shock and amazement as his lawyer's arguments gain a positive foothold in the minds of many of the justices. Justice David H. Souter worries that if public television wins the case, it is just another way of saying that "a distinctly minority candidate always loses." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says, "Debate is for the public. It shouldn't be so easy to exclude third parties." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says that criteria for participation in a debate should not be arbitrary, left up to the opinion of a government employee after the fact, but should be made clear ahead of time to all candidates.

The case has far-reaching political ramifications, beyond simply whether public television can pick and choose its own debate guests. According to Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News, and an expert on U.S. election laws, third parties have been the principal source of most of the good ideas that have shaped our democracy, from the abolition of slavery, to the right of a woman to vote, to basic child labor laws. How will similar new ideas reach the public arena in the future if all media outlets, including public television, shut out small, but potentially powerful, new voices?

The hearing ends at 11:00 a.m., and Forbes 's lawyers are quietly exuberant. We step outside into the bright sunlight for a news briefing that draws a big media turnout, and it pushes on for over an hour-a lifetime by Washington standards. This time, reporters for The Washington Post and The New York Times are here, along with USA Today, Associated Press, Christian Science Monitor, ABC, CNN, and NPR.

The air is clear and crisp, the news briefing is going well, my job is done, and I am relaxed. Behind me is the U.S. Capitol building, where President Clinton's staffers are under interrogation for a campaign finance scandal that won't go away. The significance dawns on me as I watch the camera crews pack up their gear. Over there, across the street, the Republicans and Democrats are severing whatever thread of trust and credibility that remains between them and the American electorate. While just one hour ago, up the steps from where I stand, in the chambers of the Supreme Court, the most fundamental and precious tenet of our democracy-the constitutional right to free speech- was on trial in the highest court in the land. The justices will decide in the coming months whether third parties have a seat at the table of our political process, and not coincidentally, whether our democracy regains much of its former vitality and vigor.

It is clear that we are at a crossroads in the political future of America. Given a level playing field and an equal chance under the law, it is also clear that third parties are destined to play an ever larger and more powerful role in the years ahead.

"Thank God for C-SPAN"

Wednesday, October 8, 2:00 P.M. I am on the phone to Mimi Hall, White House reporter for USA Today. She covered third parties during the 1996 campaign, and now she covers the White House. We talk about our news conferences at the National Press Club yesterday, and at the Supreme Court earlier today. She has a few moments to chat so I tell her about a phone call I had recently received from a political science professor from the University of Virginia. He was working on a textbook on third parties, and he wanted to know if I had any thoughts on how the press treats us. I asked him how many 90-minute cassettes he had for his tape recorder. He laughed, thinking that I am joking. I was not. I have a lot of thoughts on the subject, and few of them are flattering.

First, let me give you some personal background. I have been in the public relations field for 25 years. I make certain that the story I pitch to a reporter is legitimate, newsworthy, and that it's worth taking up the few moments that a writer can spare to hear about it. And even though every PR guy is used to hearing "no's" from reporters on deadlines or who are working on other stories, as a rule I have always received an open ear and a fair hearing. I took this confidence with me into my role as press secretary with a new political party in 1992.

Looking back at it, I was incredibly naive.

Science reporters, education reporters, environmental reporters, crime reporters, even business reporters always seem interested in something new. For instance, given the chance, most health reporters will do a serious story on an unusual, yet nonetheless now highly credible subject like the use of natural medicine to treat chronic diseases. But for some reason, and it still baffles me why, that is not the case with most political editors. They do not appear interested in anything outside the two-party system; worse, many of them seem to have a highly personal stake in actually preserving the two-party system, a stake which can sound like religious zeal.

Here's a third-party scorecard: During the entire 1996 campaign, neither John Hagelin-nor any other third party presidential candidate (other than Ross Perot, who is in a different tax bracket) appeared on any network NBC, CBS, or ABC news show. Time covered the third-party presidential candidates once, with just two weeks left in the campaign, summing up each candidate's entire campaign message in a one-inch caption. Nothing from Newsweek. The New York Times gave the candidates scant coverage, including one easily-missed round-up story that appeared on the bottom of page 11 in the Saturday, October 5, 1996 edition. (This was from the newspaper that sets the daily editorial agenda for all the network television news shows.)

Similar scant coverage was given by many other national and metropolitan dailies. In Iowa, an editor at the Des Moines Register actually said his paper has an editorial policy not to cover any third-party candidates. This policy was taken to the extreme during the 1994 campaign for Iowa attorney general. The Natural Law Party's candidate, Jay Marcus, an attorney and the author of a highly regarded book on criminal rehabilitation, participated in a spirited public debate with the Republican and Democratic candidates. The next day, the Register's coverage of the debate included extensive quotes from the two major-party candidates. Jay was not mentioned until the very last sentence of the article, where the reporter wrote, "Also participating in the debate was Jay Marcus of the Natural Law Party."

So why aren't third parties covered in the national press?

Coleman McCarthy, a journalist and nationally-syndicated columnist for The Washington Post for 35 years, addressed that question in a column on October 1, 1996, on what he perceived to be an unholy alliance between some members of the press and politicians, and a deep-seated unwillingness to entertain new ideas.

"Presidential debates ought to be about the choices of ideas in the marketplace of politics, with the aisles as wide as possible," McCarthy says. "If the political views and reforms of today's allegedly minor candidates-so labeled over drinks at the National Press Club or faculty lounges-are seen as 'fringy,' perhaps it is because the two major parties, with their shared monopoly on what is safe, stale, and sterile, fear freshness."

There may be other reasons why new parties receive such little press coverage. In his bestselling book, The Media Monopoly, author Ben Bagdikian points out that something very dangerous is happening to our newspapers, magazines, and television and radio stations-and not many people recognize it.¹ Our locally-owned and -operated press outlets are being bought up by huge corporations and turned into media conglomerates. On a national level, NBC is owned by General Electric, CBS is owned by Westinghouse, ABC is owned by Disney. This means, Bagdikian says, that information and news, once precious knowledge-based commodities that could move our society forward, are fast becoming entertainment-based commodities subject to heavy pressure from the bottom line. And news or information that is not a ratings-grabber or does not enrich the bottom line of the corporate owner may no longer be viewed by management as being news or information worth publicizing. Both General Electric and Westinghouse, for example, are major manufacturers of nuclear power and nuclear weapons technologies. Should it be surprising, therefore, that neither network invited John Hagelin, a Harvard-trained nuclear physicist who is solidly opposed to nuclear power, as a guest on any of its many news shows? And maybe it's mere coincidence that National Public Radio's highly regarded program, "Science Friday," which is underwritten in part by Archer Daniels Midland, one of the nation's largest producers of genetically engineered crops, has given comparatively little coverage of the growing concern over the safety of genetically engineered foods, a stand supported by some of America's foremost scientists and doctors, and endorsed by the Natural Law Party.

Fortunately, all the news on the media is not sour. Times are changing. More and more journalists are recognizing the newsworthiness and importance of third party voices, and giving them more air time and more ink. Much credit goes to Larry King for his airing of two third-party presidential debates immediately following the network televised debates between President Clinton and Senator Dole. And other reporters, such as USA Today's Mimi Hall, Knight-Ridder's Brigid Schulte, and many reporters at CNN's political desk, including Kim Kleine, made extra efforts to see that the message of third parties reached the public.

However, it was a small, but avidly watched (at least in Washington) cable network that set the standard for what can happen when third party ideas are brought to the American people. Or, as we at the Natural Law Party would say throughout the campaign, "Thank God for CSPAN."

As I said, Natural Law Party candidates received several million votes during the 1996 campaign, and John Hagelin estimates that a majority of those votes came from CSPAN viewers. That is because CSPAN let third-party candidates give their messages, for up to an hour at a time, and on many different occasions. So voters had a chance to meet new candidates, bring them into their living rooms, watch them under the scrutiny of debates and interviews and the glaring eye of an unblinking camera lens. CSPAN aired live the Natural Law Party's national nominating convention for four hours, and rebroadcast it on several occasions; aired several news conferences with John Hagelin on a range of platform planks; broadcast two third-party presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate; and hosted several in-studio, round-table discussions with the candidates. The most mail the Natural Law Party received from voters came following CSPAN broadcasts. The letters expressed inspiration, relief, and satisfaction from our message. And just about everyone asked that same, painful question: "How come you are not in the news more often?"

"Who Are You People?"

Thursday, October 9, 2:00 p.m. "Just who are you people? How did the Natural Law Party start? And where does the money to fund your party come from?"

I hear these questions all the time. This time they come from a woman who is a member of the Center for Visionary Leadership, a national networking organization of authors, teachers, scientists, environmentalists, political activists, who want to bring a more spiritual, humane approach to politics. On their own (because the Center is a nonprofit organization) they are meeting with members of the executive committee of the Natural Law Party, curious to see if there may be a meeting of the minds.

John Hagelin answers. He explains that the Natural Law Party, founded in April 1992, has grown quickly and attained a national status with millions of people voting for the party, signing its petitions, and supporting its platform, because it encompasses the individual values and public policies supported by a majority of the American people. These policies include using prevention-oriented natural medicine in the health care system to reduce disease and promote health; preserving the environment through renewable energy technologies, such as solar and wind; and safeguarding our food supply through use of sustainable agricultural practices, to grow crops without hazardous chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

The money to grow the Natural Law Party, Hagelin says, has come from grassroots support; from individual contributors across the country, usually in the $25 to $100 range. The Party refuses all PAC contributions, he says. This obviously handicaps the Natural Law Party when it is trying to compete with the major parties, but the Party has been successful nonetheless. This can be seen in the fact that John received federal matching funds. (To qualify, a presidential candidate must receive a minimum of $5000 from each of at least 20 states in small contributions of $250 or less. This $100,000 threshold is intended to demonstrate broadbased popular support.) All of the Natural Law Party's contributions and financial transactions are public record.

Everyone seems satisfied with Hagelin's answers. Then someone asks each of us on the executive committee to talk about why we joined the Natural Law Party, so I chime in.

"I was raised a lonely Democrat in a strong Northern-California Republican stronghold," I say. "I worked idealistically for Robert Kennedy in 1968 when I was a high school senior. Following Kennedy's assassination and my subsequent years as a student at U.C. Berkeley, where I quickly grew disillusioned with the political movements of the day, I disappeared from active politics. I did, however, maintain my desire to improve the lot of society. While at Berkeley, in my spare time, I studied the stress-reducing Transcendental Meditation technique, became a teacher of it, and lectured widely. I then taught it to prisoners in San Quentin Prison, to students and teachers in inner city schools and colleges, and to executives and employees in Fortune 100 companies. I even wrote a book about it.² and did several nationwide book tours. I enjoyed speaking about it. But I also felt passionate about many other issues as well, such as educational reform, protecting the environment, urban renewal, and crime prevention. I sensed that my political fire, dormant for decades, was rekindling. So when I heard about the Natural Law Party,³ I realized that here was an ideal forum for the issues that were important to me, a forum I did not find in any other political party.

When I finish telling my story, I look around the room. I can see many people nodding in agreement. It must be that my political path has not been unique.

A Glimpse into America's Political Future

Friday, October 10, 9:00 a.m. "What do you think is the future of the Natural Law Party? Is John Hagelin going to run again in 2000?"

I am having breakfast with Kim Kleine of CNN at a coffee shop next door to the network's studio. We spoke often during the 1996 campaign because I called CNN a lot, and because Kleine, a reporter for the network's political desk, was always interested, polite, and asked good questions. She is now a producer at CNN's MoneyLine, where she is working harder than ever. CNN has been covering the campaign finance hearings live on Capitol Hill and Kleine is in charge of the production. Her first love is politics, and over breakfast she wants to hear all about the Natural Law Party.

I tell her that the national political trend is on our side and that the future of the Natural Law Party looks very bright, and that I assume John Hagelin will run for president again in 2000, and be candidate, if he receives the Party's nomination. After a few more words, our conversation moves to a larger discussion on the future of politics in America. Kleine wants to know if I have any opinions, which, of course, I do. This is what I see:

1. A deep-seated backlash mounting against the Republicans and Democrats.

2. A growing grassroots movement among voters away from the two main parties towards a political newcomer.

3. The realization that to get the government we want, the Republicans and Democrats must have genuine competition at the ballot box. For that, we need campaign finance reform to get special-interest money out of politics, and reforms of election laws to allow independent and third-party candidates equal access to the political mainstream.

4. Our country's best and brightest citizens, until now alienated or disillusioned by public life, take a more active role in the political process. You don't have to look far for evidence. The Natural Law Party ran over 400 candidates during the 1996 campaign, and most of them-doctors, professors, business leaders, housewives of all ages, races, and religions-had never run for office before.

This is one very real, very positive scenario I see emerging everywhere I go in America, I tell Kim Kleine. But I also tell her that for this to happen in our lifetime, there are considerable voter misconceptions yet to overcome and some oppressive laws and institutions yet to change.