DOCSLIB.ORG

July 1992 Record

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
July 1992 Record FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION JUly 1992 999E Street NW Washington DC 20463 Volume 18, Nurrber7 situation could not include any points for local offices. The new rules, based on Advisory Opinion 1991-25, now authorize commdttees to include nonfederal point(s) in their ratios if partisan local candi­ NEW ALLOCATlm REGULATI<:::fiS dates are expected on the ballot "Ln any EFFECTIVE JUNE 18 regularly scheduled election during the The revised regulations on the alloca­ two-year congressional cycle." tion of federal and nonfederal expenses (continued) became effective on June 18, ~992, as announced in the Federal Register of that date.V TWo changes to the allocation rules allow state and local party committees to 1 IUDnATIWS: Allocation Rules Effective revise their ballot composition ratios and apply the revised ratios retroactively to 2 PUBLICATICfiS: 1991 Annual Report certain joint federal/nonfederal expenses paid since January 1, 1991, the start of the current allocation cycle. However, the deadline for making retroactive realloca­ PARTY ACTIVITIES tions is July 18, 1992. 3 Retroactive Reallocation of Revised Two other changes are not retroactively Ballot composition Ratio effective. These changes apply to all committees subject to the allocation rules, PUBLIC FUND~ including separate segregated funds and 6 June Matching Fund Payments nonconnected committees. 6 Final Repayment, 1988 Gephardt Cormnittee The revisions are briefly described below. 7 NNISC1l1Y OPINIOOS Changes to Ballot Composition l0.tios of canrr CASES State and LoCal Party CoDmittees 8 FEe v , Wright 9 White v. FEC New Nonfederal Point. Under the first 10 New Litigation change, all state and local party comRdt­ tees may include an additional nonfederal STATISTICS point in their ballot composition ratios. 10 Candidate and party Committees 11 CFR l06.5(d)(1)(ii). lWDITS LoCal office Point When Local and state 12 List of Final Audit Reports Released Officers Elected in Different Years. The second change applies only to state and <XXWLIANCE local party committees located in states 12 Nonfilers wherg state officers are elected in even 12 MURs Released to Public years while partisan local officers are elected only in odd years. under the 14 FUBLIC APPFJ\RAOCES former rules, party committees in this 15 INDEX. lThe final rules, and their explanation and REPORl'S justification, were published in the March 16 July 15 Reporting waivers 13, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR 8990). A 16 Alaska primary Date Changed detailed summary of the revisions appeared in the April 1992 Record. July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18~ Number 7 11 CFR 106.5(d)(1){ii). (Note that state party committees may add only one FEe ISSUES 19911lNNUAL REPCm' nonfederal point for local offices on the On June 1, the FEC published its Pallot, while local party committees may Aru'lual Report for 1991, a review of add a maxillll.lllt of two potnts.) the agency's activities during that • year. The report opens with a discus­ Retroactive Reallocation. Using a sion of the predicted shortfall of revised ballot composition ratio based on public funds needed for the Presiden­ the new rules, state and local party tial elections and the agency's comli.ttees have the opportunity to reallo­ efforbs to educate the public on the cate adrndnistrative and generic voter drive $1 tax checkoff, the sale source of cost.s paid since January 1, 1991. However, Presidential public funding. Legal committees will have only until July 18 to issues addressed by the Commission in reallocate these expenses and make correc­ 1991 ace also eXamined, including tive transfers from their nanfederal C01Jrt rulings on corporate communica­ ~ccounts to their federal accounts. see tions and the use of soft money in article on page 3 explaining how to calcu­ federal elections. Tables and graphs late and report these adjustments. provide data on the financial activity of political committees as well as the Olanges '!hat Apply to All camnittees FEe's operation and budget. Finally, As noted above, the following changes the report includes the agency's sug­ to the allocation rules are not retro­ gestions for changes in the campaign actively effective: finance law, which were presented to o Committees now have a 70-day window the president and Congress earlier (expanded from 40 days) to transfer funds this year. from the nonfederal account to the feder­ To order a free copy of Annual al account to pay for the nonfederal Report 1991, call 800/424-9530 or share of a joint expense. (The window 202/219-3420. begins 10 days before the federal account pays the vendor and ends 60 days after the payment.) 11 CFR 106.5(g)(2)(ii)(8) and l06.6(e)(2)(ii)(B). o committees now have a 60-day period following a fundraisifl(j program or event FEDERAL l\OOlSTER lO'lICES to adjust the fundraising ratio and to Copies of Federal Register notices transfer funds between the federal and are available from the PUblic Records nonfederal accounts to reflect the Office. - revised allocation. (When reporting these adjustment transfers, committees 1992-8 must enter the date of the event, a new 11 CFR Part 200: Administrative Regu­ requirement.) 11 CFR 106.5(f) and lations (Petitions for Rulemaking); IOG.6(d). Notice of proposed Rulemaking (57 FR 20430, May 13, 1992) Federal Election Carrmission, 999 E Street, t'M'. washington, DC 20463 800/424-9530 202;219-3420 202/219-3336 (TDD) Joan D. Aikens, Chairman Walter J. Stewart, secretary of the Senate, SCott E. 'ltlomas, Vice Chai rman Ex Officio commdssioner Lee Mn Elliott Donnald IC Anderson, Clerk Qf the House of Danny L. I"IeDona1d Representatives, EX Officio commdssioner John warren !'ICGarry Trevor Potter 2 July 1992 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Volume 18, Number 7 2. Determine 'lbtal Administrative,IVoter Ddve Payments to Be Reallocated PARTY AC1rlVITIES Next, determine the total amount paid by the federal and nonfederal accounts for administrative and generic voter drive • RE'mOP.CTIVE APPLlCATIOO OF REVISED BALLOr expenses from January 1, 1991, through the e::atPOSITIC6 RATI.O current date. You should rely on canmittee Under the new allocation regulations, records, although your committee's previous $tate and local party committees may reports may provide some help. include an extra nonfederal point in their o 1991 TotaL Determine the total amount ballot composition ratios, i.e., the ratio of the c~ttee's administrative)Voter used to allocate joint federal and non­ drive payments for 1991. The Schedule H4 federal adrrdnistrative and generic voter filed with the cornmi ttee's year-end drive expenses. Additionally, certain report for 1991 may be a help. The last state and local party committees--those "event year-to-date" entry for an located in states where local officers are administrative/voter drive payment should elected only in odd years while statewide show the total payments for 1991. officers are elected in even years--may o 1992 Total. Now determine the total further adjust the ratio to include local amount of the committee'S administrative/ partisan offices on the ballot. (See voter drive payments from the beginninq article on page 1.) of 1992 through the current date. The committees now have a limited oppor­ schedule H4 filed with the committee's tunity-until July l8--to apply the last report should show total payments adjusted ballot composition ratio retro­ reported thus far in 1992. The conunit­ actively to payments made since January 1, tee's records should provide the amount 1991, and to make adjustment transfers from paid for administrative/voter drive their nonfederal accounts to their federal expenses from the closing date of the accounts. last report through the cur.ent date. This article explains how to calculate o lldd the Totals. Add the 1991 and 1992 and report retroactive reallocations and totals to arrive at the total amount of transfers. It is based on Advisory administrative/Voter drive payments that Opinions 1991-25 and 1991-15. In the "may be reallocated under the revised examples used here, a state party committee ratio. revises its ratio to include the additional ExaJIIple. The state party commi ttee nonfederal point. The same method should found that its 1991 year-to-ctate total for be used by those committees located in adrndnistrative/voter drive payments was states which elect local offices in odd $85,000. years and state officers in even yaars.ll The committee's most recent report (the 1992 second quarter report covering through 1. Calculate Revised Ratio .June 30) shows a year-to-datE total of First, calculate the revised ratio. $10,000. Comttee records from July 1 ExaJuple. The old ratio used by a state throuqh the current date (July 15) indicate party committee for the 1991-92 election that the committ~e paid another $5,000 in cycle was 28 percent federal/72 percent admdnistrative/Voter drive expenses in nonfederal (2 federal points and 5 1992. The current year-to-date total for nonfederal points). wi th the addition of 1992 is therefore $15,000 ($10,000 plus another nonfederal point, the new ratio is $5, 000). 25 percent federalj75 percent nonfederal (2 Thus, th~ total amount of administra­ federal points and 6 nonfederal points). tive/voter drive payments that may be reallocated is $100,000 ($85,000 plus $15,(00). 3. Determine Federal and Nonfederal A100Unts ~ith respect to these committees, state under old Ratio committees may now add one nonfederal point Apply the old ratio to the total for local partisan offices on the ballot in calculated above. This will give you the odd years, and local committees may add a amount paid by each account. maximum of two nonfederal points for such Example. Applying the old ratio (28 offices.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Women and the Presidency
    Women and the Presidency By Cynthia Richie Terrell* I. Introduction As six women entered the field of Democratic presidential candidates in 2019, the political media rushed to declare 2020 a new “year of the woman.” In the Washington Post, one political commentator proclaimed that “2020 may be historic for women in more ways than one”1 given that four of these woman presidential candidates were already holding a U.S. Senate seat. A writer for Vox similarly hailed the “unprecedented range of solid women” seeking the nomination and urged Democrats to nominate one of them.2 Politico ran a piece definitively declaring that “2020 will be the year of the woman” and went on to suggest that the “Democratic primary landscape looks to be tilted to another woman presidential nominee.”3 The excited tone projected by the media carried an air of inevitability: after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, despite receiving 2.8 million more popular votes than her opponent, ever more women were running for the presidency. There is a reason, however, why historical inevitably has not yet been realized. Although Americans have selected a president 58 times, a man has won every one of these contests. Before 2019, a major party’s presidential debates had never featured more than one woman. Progress toward gender balance in politics has moved at a glacial pace. In 1937, seventeen years after passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, Gallup conducted a poll in which Americans were asked whether they would support a woman for president “if she were qualified in every other respect?”4 * Cynthia Richie Terrell is the founder and executive director of RepresentWomen, an organization dedicated to advancing women’s representation and leadership in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
    A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936
    [Show full text]
  • Schnoebelen Dissertation-FULL VERSION
    The Gendered Shackles of the Would-Be “Madame President”: A Rhetorical Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Communication during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary BY ©2010 James M. Schnoebelen Submitted to the graduate degree program in Communication Studies and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. __________________________________ Chairperson __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Date Defended __________________________________ The Dissertation Committee for James M. Schnoebelen certifies That this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Gendered Shackles of the Would-Be “Madame President”: A Rhetorical Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Communication during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary Committee: __________________________________ Chairperson __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ Date Defended __________________________________ 2 This work is dedicated to all of the daring women who have ever tried to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling in the United States (in chronological order): Victoria Woodhull (1872, 1892) Belva Lockwood (1884, 1888) Grace Allen (1940) Margaret Chase Smith (1964) Charlene Mitchell (1968) Shirley Chisholm (1972) Patsy Takemoto Mink (1972) Bella Abzug (1972) Linda Osteen
    [Show full text]
  • The 1992 Elections in Virginia: a Status Quo State in the Year of Change
    Journal of Political Science Volume 21 Number 1 Article 3 November 1993 The 1992 Elections in Virginia: A Status Quo State in the Year of Change Larry J. Sabato Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Sabato, Larry J. (1993) "The 1992 Elections in Virginia: A Status Quo State in the Year of Change," Journal of Political Science: Vol. 21 : No. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops/vol21/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Politics at CCU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Political Science by an authorized editor of CCU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE 1992 ELECTIONS IN VIRGINIA: A STATUS QUO STATE IN THE YEAR OF CHANGE Larry J. Sabato University of Virginia THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION The 1992 election, full of upheaval and transformation around the country, was more traditional in the Old Dominion. While the nation was ousting White House incumbent George Bush, Virginia voted to reelect him by a percentage that was Bush's sixth-best of the 50 states. 1 And in a year when many scandal­ tainted congressional incumbents stepped aside, voluntarily or through defeat, the only changes in Virginia's U. S. House line-up were forced by redistricting and one age-related retire­ ment. Much as in 1976, when southern Democrat Jimmy Carter won the presidency, Virginia resisted both regionalism and the call for change-and this time the Commonwealth was joined by most other states of the South.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Analysis of the Black President in Film and Television
    “WELL, IT IS BECAUSE HE’S BLACK”: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE BLACK PRESIDENT IN FILM AND TELEVISION Phillip Lamarr Cunningham A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2011 Committee: Dr. Angela M. Nelson, Advisor Dr. Ashutosh Sohoni Graduate Faculty Representative Dr. Michael Butterworth Dr. Susana Peña Dr. Maisha Wester © 2011 Phillip Lamarr Cunningham All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Angela Nelson, Ph.D., Advisor With the election of the United States’ first black president Barack Obama, scholars have begun to examine the myriad of ways Obama has been represented in popular culture. However, before Obama’s election, a black American president had already appeared in popular culture, especially in comedic and sci-fi/disaster films and television series. Thus far, scholars have tread lightly on fictional black presidents in popular culture; however, those who have tend to suggest that these presidents—and the apparent unimportance of their race in these films—are evidence of the post-racial nature of these texts. However, this dissertation argues the contrary. This study’s contention is that, though the black president appears in films and televisions series in which his presidency is presented as evidence of a post-racial America, he actually fails to transcend race. Instead, these black cinematic presidents reaffirm race’s primacy in American culture through consistent portrayals and continued involvement in comedies and disasters. In order to support these assertions, this study first constructs a critical history of the fears of a black presidency, tracing those fears from this nation’s formative years to the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Ralph Nader: White Knight Or Pied Piper?
    Ralph Nader: White Knight or Pied Piper? Op-Ed printed in The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, November 2, 2000 Ralph Nader wants to win at least five percent of the national vote to qualify the Green Party for federal matching funds in the 2004 campaign, hoping to provide the means to build a permanent political watchdog for progressive causes. The recent experience of minor parties suggests a less happy outcome. Was anyone watching what happened to the Reform Party? Membership in American political parties is wide open, leaving promising minor parties vulnerable to colonization by less successful groups from the fringes of political life, as the Reform Party discovered. If Nader were to get five percent of the vote, the Greens would be a magnet for every group of opportunists jumping ship from the battered Reform Party. First in line likely would be Lenora Fulani, leader of the political cult once called the New Alliance Party, followed by Maharishi University professor John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party. Superficially at least, the left-populist rhetoric of Fulani and the New Age nostrums of Hagelin would be a better fit with the Greens than they were with Reform. Next in line would be the various Trotskyist sects presently biding their time in more marginal minor parties. The banners of one of these, the International Socialist Organization, were already in evidence at the pro-Nader rally outside the Presidential debate in Boston. Battles among such obscure socialist sects as the Workers World Party and its perennial candidates contributed to the decline of California’s Peace and Freedom Party, which lost its ballot status last year, leaving the Greens as the only tempting alternative.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 23, Number 18, April 26, 1996
    FIDELIO Journal of Poetry, Science, and Statecraft Publisher of LaRouche's major theoretical writings FEATURED in the Spring 1996 issue: How Hobbes) Mathematics FIDELI Misshaped Modern History O Journal of Poetry, Science, and Statecraft by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jf. "There is no area of prevailing opinion in the fme arts, the so-called 'social sciences,' in political-economy, in the teaching of theology, in doctrines of historiography, within the departments of philosophy, and so on, which is not premised upon the same, false, axiomatic assumptions which are derived from the mathematical-physics presumptions of the mathematicians Sarpi, Galileo, Hobbes, et al." Thomas Hobbes: Fascist Exponent of Enlightenment Science) by Brian Lantz The Mandeville Model) by H. Graham Lowry Christian Economics-Or the (Structures of Sin)? by William F. Wertz, Jf. Sign me up for FIDELIO $20 for 4 issues NAME _______________________________________________ ADDRESS ____________________________________________ CITY ____________STATE _---- ZIP ______ TEL (day) ___________(eve) _________ __ Make checks or money orders payable to: Schiller, Institute, Inc. Dept. E P.O. Box 20244 Washington, D.C. 20041-0244 Founder and Contributing Editor: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. Editorial Board: Melvin Klenetsky, Antony From the Associate Editor Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, Edward Spannaus, Nancy Spannaus, Jeffrey Steinberg, Webster Tarpley, Carol White, Christopher White Senior Editor: Nora Hamerman I would like to address this letter primarily to our newer subscribers, Associate Editor: Susan Welsh Managing Editors: John Sigerson, who have signed up in the course of the effort to exonerate Lyndon Ronald Kokinda LaRouche. You have, by now, gotten an inkling of the injustice that Science and Technology: Carol White has been perpetrated in this case; but if you are unsure about exactly Special Projects: Mark Burdman Book Editor: Katherine Notley who or what was behind this injustice, our Feature will be a real Advertising Director: Marsha Freeman eye-opener.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presidential Election Public Funding Program—A Commissioner’S Perspective
    The Presidential Election Public Funding Program—A Commissioner’s Perspective Prepared by Scott E. Thomas Campaign Finance Institute Task Force on Financing Presidential Nominations Washington, D.C. January 31, 2003 The Federal Election Commission (“the Commission” or “the FEC”) has played a central role in sustaining the presidential public funding program. Under this program: (1) candidates seeking the nomination of a party may seek matching funds to supplement contributions being raised; (2) parties may receive grants to pay for their nominating conventions, fully in the case of major parties; and (3) candidates may receive grants to pay for the general election phase, fully in the case of major party candidates. The underlying purpose of the program is to reduce the instances where candidates and their party apparatus would be susceptible to requests for favors by those who would arrange for funding the campaigns and conventions. Relying on funds raised from millions of individuals earmarking $3 of their taxes each year, rather than on funds raised from persons who can gather and forward batches of larger contributions, the candidates will encounter fewer quid pro quo situations as officeholders. This paper will address several areas: (1) the extent to which the program is facing funding constraints and what remedies have been considered by the FEC; (2) the impact of the early primaries and the primary spending limit on candidates during the April to August ‘lull;’ (3) the administrative and other costs of the program weighed against the benefits derived from making funds available to participating candidates and parties; and (4) whether the FEC has been striking the right balance between guarding the public fisc on the one hand, and allowing participants in the program latitude to avoid excessive oversight on the other.1 The funding shortage The Commission has warned for years that the mechanism for funding the public funding program needs repair.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Approval of Trans-Atlantic Charity Concert in Limbo Carr Tenders Resignation After Closed SA Meeting
    <3 SINCE 1916 VOLUME 76, NO.^ CLOSED MEETING AT THE THRESHER, EVERYONE'S INVITED OCTOBER 28,1988 Administrative approval of trans-Atlantic charity concert in limbo fear of objections from the surround- College, said a number of charities ing, and telethons. Our accountants, pressed interest in CAMROCK by Keith Couch ing community based on have already been invited to partici- Arthur Young International, are Lamont said CAMROCK will be the objections caused by last sum- pate, including Save the Children compiling an official budget in Eng- helped by the patronage of execu- A group of Rice and Cambridge mer's "Monsters of Rock and Roll" Fund, SOS Children's Villages, land based on Live Aid's accounts, tives of every major recording label students are organizing a trans-At- concert at Rice Stadium. Houston Food Bank, and a national which will be ready in a few weeks' in the U.S. and Britain, including lantic concert to be held next sum- The project's name is "CAM- anti-drug charity. time," Lamont said. Nesuhi Ertegun, president of of mer to raise money for childrens' ROCK FOR KIDS '89." Simon Glass, a third-year student CAMROCK has commitments Warner Brothers Records, and ex- charities around the world. The site The money raised through the at Cambridge University, is the inter- from major promoters in both coun- ecutives at CBS, Virgin, RCA, Arista, in England is already confirmed, as concerts at Rice and Cambridge will national director of the CAMROCK tries. Harvey Goldsmith Entertain- and A&M Records. yet, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Liberty Pledge News
    The Liberty Pledge News December 1988 Dear Pledgers, Hi - Sharon Freeman here. Remember me? I worked at the national office in Houston from November '85 until December '87, and was involved in the production of 19 issues of Liberty Pledge News before leaving the staff and focusing on my responsibilities as an At-Large member of the National Committee. I've recently relocated to DC, and now my top priority is to get the Pledge back on schedule ASAP. As a member of the INC Finance Committee, I'm not interested in just the newsletter, but the Pledge program as a whole. If you have any advice, comments, complaints, and/or suggestions, please contact me care of the national office. Enough of that for now. I want to talk about this Pledge issue. The LP was mentioned in over 1200 newspaper articles in the month of November, and several themes emerged: 1) The Democratic and Republican parties have very little to offer the voters. (We already knew that, but the papers treat it like news.) 2) The media (who own the News Election Service) are involved in the falsfication not only of the election process, but the results as well; their role is denounced even by their own editors. 3) Ballot access laws have to be changed before we can seriously 00!,!Jndnt. p,,2-c.ies on the national 4) Meanwhile, we can continue to make real inroads on the local level. If the rest of the headlines and articles in this month's Pledge make you as mad as they did me, remember, your continued support of the Pledge program allows us to: * start planning now for '90 and '92 (when we may face a Republican incumbent saddled with an economic crisis and a Democratic party irreconcilably split); * set aside funds for a professional media campaign and the ongoing court/petition battle for ballot access.
    [Show full text]
  • Ballot Access News
    BALLOT ACCESS NEWS San Francisco, California October 12, 1988 Volume 4 Number 5 HR 1582 MISSOURI, INDIANA ELECTORS September, a number of religious leaders visited On August 1, 1988, all new political parties in Missouri, Democratic congressmen to lobby for HR 1582. and all political parties in Indiana, were required to certify the bill to protect ballot access for third party and inde­ the names of their presidential elector candidates to the _all"lr!lQII"'Ilf- candidates in federal elections. Rev. Tom Weise of Secretary of State. Political parties in both states made Mobile, Alabama Catholic archdiocese, Rev. Ted errors, and did not certify the names by the deadline. In Williams of Shiloh Baptist Church, and Marc Lenders of Missouri, the Libertarian slate of electors was late; in the Interfaith Action for Economic Justice, from Belgium, Indiana, both the Republican and Democratic slate of participated. Congressman Al Swift told them that if electors were late (the Democrats were a week late, the third parties could get on the ballot, it would split the Republicans were 2 days late). "progressiveft vote. Nevertheless, he said HR 1582 is an The results show how the Fourteenth Amendment to the important bill and he intends to hold hearings on its U.S. Constitution is not enforced. In Indiana, the Secre­ successor bill in the next Congress, "if he has time". tary of State decided to overlook the problem; in Mis­ Congressman Sam Gejdenson of Connecticut and souri, the Secretary of State decided that the Libertarian Benjamin Cardin ofMaryland said much the same . presidential candidate could not appear on the ballot.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 107Th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 107th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 147 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2001 No. 38 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was APPOINTMENT OF ACTING I thank my colleagues for their at- called to order by the Honorable PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE tention. GEORGE ALLEN, a Senator from the The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for State of Virginia. clerk will please read a communication a question? to the Senate from the President pro Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield. PRAYER tempore (Mr. THURMOND). Mr. REID. Mr. President, through my friend from Vermont, I ask the Chair, The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John The legislative clerk read the fol- lowing letter: if all time is used on the Torricelli Ogilvie, offered the following prayer: amendment—he spoke for a short time Gracious Lord, You have told us that U.S. SENATE, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, last night—what time would the vote if we, as branches, are connected to Washington, DC, March 21, 2001. occur? You, the Vine of virtue, our lives will To the Senate: The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- emulate Your character. We dedicate Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, pore. Approximately 12:20 p.m. this day to live as branches for the flow of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby Mr. REID. I thank the Chair. appoint the Honorable GEORGE ALLEN, a Sen- of Your spirit. We admit that apart f from You, we can accomplish nothing ator from the State of Virginia, to perform of lasting significance.
    [Show full text]