PIML 96051402 / Forwarded to Patriot Information Mailing List: [The following message (below) is "inside" information on Perot and the Reform Party. Perot, as a New World Order lackey, ran for President in 1992 to act as a spoiler against Libertarian and other alternative candidates. Since the major media is largely controlled by the NWO gang, he was quite successful in diverting attention to himself and squelching the message of Marrou and other candidates. It looks as though he will again attempt to confuse and splinter patriots through the vehicle of the Reform Party. The following message also shows how difficult it is under current laws to organize an alternative party. The Libertarian Party is the LIBERTY party; it is the third largest political party in the United States. Millions of Americans have voted for Libertarian Party candidates in past elections throughout the country, despite the fact that many state governments place every imaginable roadblock in our path in order to keep our candidates off the ballot and deprive voters of a real choice. Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders. The Libertarian party was on the ballot in all 50 states in 1992 (not the first time) and there is every reason to expect that it will be on the ballot in all 50 states in 1996. Patriots are going to have to learn to join together in strength to return liberty to America. Fragmentation and splintering serve no one except the NWO gang. I will now put on my psychic hat and make two predictions: (1) Buchanan will endorse Dole and patriots will have no one to vote for who has the remotest chance of being elected except the Libertarian candidate who will be selected at the convention in July. (2) That candidate will be Harry Browne. His web page is . Support of tiny parties and splinter groups like the U.S. Taxpayers' Party, while their aims may be admirable, only acts to elect the Republicrat candidate Clinton/Dole.] PIML [end unpaid and unashamed political advertisement] [Note on another subject: As mentioned before, AOL has not seen fit to add PIML to their registry of mailing lists, although they solicit new additions. I recently noticed they had added a "patriots" mailing list (Patriots List .) Thinking that AOL must have relaxed their censorship screening, I subscribed to the new list. Don't bother to subscribe - it is a football team mailing list.] PIML ------------------------------------------------------------------ From: "Philip D. Madsen" To: "'Marilou Stanley'" Cc: "uwsa@shell.portal.com" Subject: Answers To Your Reform Party Questons Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:46:24 -0500 Marilou, In answer to your questions (below) here is what I know. The national Reform Party does not yet formally exist as a proper national political party. To do so, it would need state party organizations in all 50 states, a constitution or similar charter document which all 50 organizations have agreed to, and sta tus as a national political party committee under Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules. Ross Perot and Reform Party activists are busy building such an organization. Minnesota was easier than most states because we already had a third major party established when the Reform Party effort began. Having considered all the factors, the MN Independence Party (founded in 1992) is now in the process of associating itself w ith the Reform Party. In so associating, we have yeilded none of our self-governing power and democratic ways. Some states do not permit political parties to become established until after they have run a candidate for office. I believe about a dozen states have such a requirement. In those cases it will be necessary for a candidate to file as a Reform Party can didate. That candidate's voting results will then determine if the party qualified in that state. It will not be until after November, 1996 when all 50 states have officially recognized Reform Party organizations in them. This recognition comes from each state's Secretary of State, not from Dallas. Once a state party organization is properly establi shed, what Dallas wants or does not want is relevant only to the extent that the state organization considers it to be relevant. When Ross Perot announced his support of a national third party organizing effort, the initial organization was called "Citizens To Establish a Reform Party (CERP)." That organization was a sole proprietorship owned and operated by Ross Perot. It consis ted of Mr. Perot and a number of paid employees, many of whom were former UWSA paid employees. A few weeks ago, FEC rules required Mr. Perot to re-organize this entity into a political committee (not a political party committee, but a political committe e as defined by FEC rules). That committee is known as the "Perot Reform Committee." The Perot Reform Committee recently filed its first FEC report, the details of which were reported by the press. As I recall, Mr. Perot is the sole contributor. He has contributed somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to date, most of which went to pay for staff, travel, and petition efforts. This report is an item of public record. The FEC staff can tell how to receive a copy. The FEC number is 800-424-9530. FEC reports are quite detailed, showing the dollar amounts expended and the recipients of those expenditures. I believe you will be able to find the answers to many of your questions by obtaining a copy of this report. I cannot provide you with current detailed information about who runs the Perot Reform Committee simply because I do not know. Obviously, Ross Perot and Russ Verney have key roles. My guess is that the body is essentially ths same as CERP was. Is this a top-down committee accountable only to itself? Yes it is. Does that bother me? No it doesn't. When I founded the Independence Party of Minnesota in 1992, there was no way to do so without autocratically stepping forward and declaring that the IP now exists. It is a chicken and egg problem. How do you get deomocratically elected leaders for an organization that does not yet exist? The solution is to simply take charge, provide the leadership needed to develop a free-standing organization, dev elop a constitution, and elect people under those rules. Robert's Rules of Order show how to establish a permenant organization where one does not yet exist. Under Robert's Rules, the Perot Reform Committee is regarded as a sponsoring organization. The sponsors have all the power and do the initial organizing work. The direction the organization takes from there is a function of what the members and sponsors agree to. The agreement is codified in the organization's constitution or other charter document. That document spells out the powers, rights, and rela tionships of all members, leaders, and organizational entities. If the sponsors dictate the terms and the members agree, you have a top-down organziation. If the sponsors facilitate a democratic process for drafting and adopting the document, you have a bottom-up organziation. If the sponsors dictate the terms and the majority of member depart, you have a lot of bitterness and regrets. A national political party is nothing more than a collection of 50 state party organizations. I believe it unlikely that any official national Reform Party constitution work will be done until after the 1996 elections. First we need to get state party organizations estabilished in all 50 states. Once that occurs, constitution work can be properly done, with each state party organization having a voice and vote in drafting the document. Before we can get established in all 50 states, we need a national candidate. That's what the national nominating convention is for. Note that this nominating convention does not establish a national party. It only nominates a candidate. After the elect ion, and after the charter document is adopted by those who will live under it, the national Reform Party will properly exist. Until then, all there is is the Perot Reform Committee; which is doing this nation a great service by supporting citizens in forming the state party organizations that will one day make up the national Reform Party. Without Mr. Perot's support, money, a nd willingness to fight the court battles, it would be nearly impossible to establish the third major national party we need to do battle with the Democrats and Republicans to reform our government. My answers to your other questions are as follows: I know nothing of Dick Tolliver. To find out if he is a paid worker, check the FEC report. I have had no occasion to track or know the AZ petition figures. From our Minnesota perspective, we simply note that in state after state, the petition objectives are being achieved as the petition dates come and go. As an officer of the MN IP, I am rel uctant to inquire about the details of another state's petition drive. Such a move would be discourteous to my counterparts in AZ. If someone in another state wanted to know the facts and figures about the MN IP, I would prefer that they ask us. "Thousands" may be the best answer that is available to you right now. You know how petition drives go. Until all the sheets are gathered in one place and counted, the precise number of signatures is difficult to determine. In time the exact number will be known. Based on the petitioning success in other states, I have little doubt that the AZ requirements will be met. >From news reports, Internet comments, and personal contact with one paid petitioner, I know that paid petitioners have been used in several states. Some people suggest that paid petitioners make the drive less real or somehow illigitimate. I disagree. Given the obscene and unfair legal restrictions the Demcorats and Republicans have placed on citizens who wish to form third parties, I am glad Mr. Perot is paying to get the petition job done where it is necessary to do so. This helps level the playi ng field. Why should we have such a difficult time getting our candidates on the ballot when the Democrats and Republicans have such an easy time? Once we elect our own Reform Party candidates we can change the laws to make elections fair for all people. Until th en, it does little public good to critizize paid petitioners. Expecting volunteers to rise up and do this hard work for an obscure outcome (estabilshing a third party) only reinforces the unfair ballot access laws the Democrats and Republicans have impo sed. Thank you for your questions which gave me this opportunity to share this information. Phil Madsen ---------- From: Marilou Stanley[SMTP:ms@primenet.com] Sent: Monday, May 13, 1996 5:17 AM To: Philip D. Madsen Cc: uwsa@shell.portal.com Subject: Re: UWSA Lesson Learned Phil, Thanks for your open attitude. Can you tell me who runs the national Reform Party? Who is on the board of directors? Who are their paid staff? How many former directors of UWSA are now on their payroll? Is Dick Toliver a paid worker? All phone calls I receive at our UWSA-AZ h.q. with questions about the Reform Party or the chances Ross will run again are referred to their phone number. To date, I probably have had about 3 dozen calls. When I inquired as to how many signatures they had collected, I was told they had thousands. Are you privy to these figures? If so, are you allowed to share them? How many states are using paid circulators? I was told that in Nevada they were paying 50 cents per signature. Since they needed less than 3700, didn't they have enough Reform Party volunteers to do this? Thanks for your help. Marilou =============== >=snip= >If the Reform Party is going to belong to the people, then the Reform Party information must also belong to the people. Our Minnesota party has been setting a good open information example throughout the four years we have existed. Let's all work hard for open information in all 50 states. > >If anyone reading this message is aware of any "secret keeping" now going on in the Reform Party, I want to know about it. I am prepared to speak out against any such activity and to take whatever action is necessary and appropriate to nip such activity in the bud. I trust other Reform Party leaders are willing to do the same. > >Phil Madsen >Independence Party of Minnesota >(soon to be the Reform Party of MN) > ==snip== Marilou Stanley ++++++++++++++++++++++++ To be born free is a blessing. To live free is a privilege. To die free is a responsibility. Broussard ++++++++++++++++++++++++ * Patriot Information Mailing List * A service to help inform those who have an active interest in * returning our federal and state governments to limited, * constitutional government * Send messages for consideration and possible posting to * butterb@sagenet.net (Bill Utterback). * To subscribe or unsubscribe, send message with subject line * "subscribe patriot" or "unsubscribe patriot" * Forwarded messages sent on this mailing list are NOT verified. * See World's Smallest Political Quiz: www.self-gov.org/quiz.html * Libertarian is to LIBERTY as librarian is to library (DePena) * PIML grants permission to copy and repost this message * in its entirety with headers and trailers left intact.