Countdown

Home > Interviews > David Cobb

David Cobb

David Cobb was the Green Party’s presidential nominee in 2004. Before that he was the party’s general counsel and its nominee, in 2002, for Texas attorney general. He is a fellow of the Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution in Madison, Wisconsin, an organization that pledges to launch “a new stage in the struggle for democracy,” and a member of the steering committee of Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, a community action group in Eureka, California. Cobb received nearly 120,000 votes in the 2004 general election.

Josh Israel interviewed Cobb on May 1, 2007.

Would you, as the 2004 Green Party presidential nominee, give us some sort of a sense as to the challenges that face a so-called third-party candidate in the current day?

Well, they’re all interrelated. The reality is that the wealthy elite, through their corporate institutions, have hijacked not only the two major political parties, but have conspired to erect structural barriers to participation by so-called alternative parties or independents in the process. By which I mean denying access to the ballot. I mean denying the ability to participate in the debates. And, in conjunction with the media elite, to ensure that the American people either one, never hear about the alternative parties or their candidates; or two, minimize and delegitimize any efforts at alternative political party organizing. So all of these things, taken together, really are an effort to ensure that anything outside of the box of the current corporatist state is never presented to the American people.

Now, the first thing you mentioned was ballot access and the challenge there. In how many states, in 2004, were you able to make it on the ballot?

I was on the ballot, I think, in about 35 states. But it’s worth pointing out that what that means is a considerable amount of energy and time and effort and money had to go into the just basic ballot-access requirements. It’s further worth pointing out that, when the people in Afghanistan and Iraq had elections, it was easier for people to be on the ballot in those two national state elections than it was to get on the ballot in the United States of America.

What sorts of challenges did you face?

Well, first of all, draconian requirements in many states that can be directly tied to prior successful efforts at third-party organizing. In other words, many of the states that have very high barriers can be traced back to previous successful efforts at alternative parties getting on the ballot and electing people. But beyond that, there were many examples of people being denied their constitutional rights to assemble and to petition in public spaces. So in addition to the blatant laws that make it difficult to appear on the ballot, there was the fact that many petitioners were prevented from gathering signatures in public spaces. In other words, corporate America and our culture are sort of creating this idea where the public commons, or the commons themselves, are ever-shrinking. And we just don’t interact with one another as citizens very often in this country.

And if you had to approximate, how much would you say you raised in the entire campaign?

Gosh, that money is available on the FEC [Federal Election Commission] site. I honestly don’t even know.

What percentage, roughly, of that went to getting on the ballot?

Probably about 20 percent.

So, a fairly sizable chunk.

Oh, yes. Absolutely.

And the money you raised, how did you go about doing that?

Well, all of our money was raised from individuals. We didn’t raise any money from any corporations or businesses. Nor did we bundle money. Our money was raised from Green Party members, and activists, and supporters.

Did you personally have to make phone calls?

Yes. I spent a considerable amount of my time during the day on the phone just asking for money.

And were you able to qualify for federal matching funds?

We did not.

You weren’t able to or by choice?

We were not able to. We had hoped to. But the reality is that with Ralph Nader’s independent run, and the difference of opinion among Greens about how to proceed, it made it very difficult. I believe that if Ralph had not run, then the Green Party’s candidate would have been able to qualify. And of course if Ralph had sought the Green Party’s nomination, likely he would have received it, and then he would have qualified. Now remember that I was the lawyer representing the Green Party in 2000, helped to ensure that Ralph’s 2000 campaign qualified for federal matching funds, and had put the plan into place to do that in advance, as well as managing Ralph’s campaign in Texas in 2000. So there was a lot of background and history in being able to achieve the matching funds. But Ralph’s independent campaign really muddied the waters for the Greens in a very real way.

Do you support the idea of matching funds and public financing?

Yes, yes. And I should say that the FEC matching funds program is actually a very anemic and weak example. What I support is publicly funded elections. The reality is that we should look at elections as the infrastructure of democracy. And just as we expect and use our tax dollars to develop infrastructure systems like roads and water delivery and sewage and refuse removal, so too should we be willing and expect to create the infrastructure of our elections with publicly financed elections. Because let’s just put it bluntly: The most charitable way to describe how campaigns are currently financed is by considering it an investment for which the wealthy contributors expect and receive a very lucrative return on that investment. But more bluntly and more honestly, we would call it legalized bribery. The number of examples of corporate donations or wealthy people making contributions and then getting either blatant quid pro quo or an assumed quid pro quo for legislation is legion. The reality is your own organization helps to profile that.

The rise of the Internet has been talked about by some of the folks we have talked to as perhaps something of an equalizer, which may take away some of the role of money in presidential politics, both as far as it being a way for candidates to raise money in smaller amounts from individuals, but also as a way to get the message out and organize through things like YouTube and various networking sites. What do you think of that theory?

Well, I think that every tool that becomes available to us we should utilize in order to build a movement for a more peaceful, just, sustainable, and democratic society. And I am heartened by the creative use of the Internet, and jealously guard net neutrality as a result. Having said that, we shouldn’t kid ourselves to think that the very fact that money can be raised in larger amounts from smaller individual donations from ever-more people doesn’t really address the corrosive effect of corporate money in elections.

The Commission on Presidential Debates, which sponsors the general election debates, did not permit you to participate. And speaking with the Libertarian nominee, he related a story of the two of you riding together in a police car.

That’s true. We were arrested in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience as we attempted to cross the police line protecting the presidential debates from participation from independents and alternative parties. But you know, let’s back up a moment and recognize that the Commission on Presidential Debates — notwithstanding its seemingly benign sounding name, or even governmental sounding name — is actually controlled and created by both major political parties. So what we have is two major political parties coming together and conspiring to ensure that under no circumstances will they let an alternative party voice be heard.

As a result, you didn’t hear anybody talking about ending the war in Iraq. You didn’t hear anyone talking about creating a single-payer, universal health-care model. You didn’t hear anybody talking about raising the minimum wage to a living wage. You didn’t hear anyone talking about the corporate globalization paradigm of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, just basically destroying the economies of countries in the global south and creating absolute misery in its wake. You didn’t hear anyone talking about the core issues that the majority of Americans actually believe in. In addition to that, let’s be clear: The Commission on Presidential Debates actually was sponsored by Anheuser-Busch [Companies, Inc.] and Philip Morris [USA]. This would be a Saturday Night Live skit if it wasn’t so serious. You had beer and tobacco corporate money conspiring with the two major political parties to put on a “debate” that was absolutely devoid of any political discourse. It’s really amazing that the American people are even bothering to watch it at that level.

The threshold that they established after 1992, when Ross Perot was able to participate, was [to be] 15 percent in public polls. I take it you think that’s an unfair threshold?

Certainly.

I am curious as to what you think a better way of doing it would be.

Certainly. Let’s back up a moment. Remember [that] when Ross Perot received 18 percent of the vote, it was in large part due to the fact that he was able to speak directly to the American people. Partly it was because of his own vast fortune at being able to engage in a media campaign. But it was also his performance on the presidential debates. In addition, take a look at the phenomenon of Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, where at the end of every debate where he was allowed to participate, he gained ever more adherence. And everyone who’s looked at that phenomenon or that election cycle recognizes that it was his participation in the debates that actually made him a viable candidate.

So participation in the debates, it really cannot be underscored. And then specifically to the 15 percent threshold, I mean, they originally didn’t have any actual formula for participation. And then they came up with a formula only because they were basically forced to, because it was so outrageous that they did not allow participation by any other candidates in ’96. And then in addition to that, again, the very fact that you are allowing the two major parties to set any kind of standard is problematic. Now, to the merits of 15 percent, it’s worth pointing out that most of those polls and surveys do not even list any alternative parties in their survey questions. So it is, again, designed to ensure that nobody would be able to meet the threshold. And then lastly, it’s important to recognize that the process of the debates should be a place where ideas are aired and honestly debated. It shouldn’t simply be a question of who might be able to win, because under those circumstances, there have been several elections where it was clear who was going to be the winner. Frankly, in 1996, everybody knew that Dole didn’t have chance.

I suspect it would have been difficult for them to have had the debate with just Clinton.
Well, that’s true. It would probably be just as interesting.

What would have been, in your view, a fair standard or process?

I think that any candidate who is able to be on a sufficient number of ballots in order to qualify to win the Electoral College ought to be on the debates. And frankly, I would urge you if you have not already [done so] to contact the Citizens’ Commission on Presidential Debates, which has actually gone through and created a broad-based coalition of groups across the political spectrum that are in agreement that creating a new citizen-owned debate process is what’s needed. And they have actually gone through a consensus-building process and come up with a formula that most folks can agree with. 

Talk a little bit, if you would, about the media and the role it plays.

Well, sadly, the fourth estate is no longer separable at all from either the national government or the corporate interests that the national government serves. I honestly believe that today corporate media exist in order to shape and frame the parameters of what’s possible. The consolidation of media ownership in this country is staggering. I am sure you are aware of it and your readers will be aware of it. If not, they should take a look at some of the work of Bob McChesney [a professor of media studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign], John Stauber [the founder of the Center for Media & Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin], John Nichols [the Washington correspondent of The Nation magazine], and others and see the stunning consolidation of print, radio, and television in ever fewer hands.

So, that alone is frightening. Then you can actually see how the media’s role in the drumbeat to the illegitimate, immoral, and unconstitutional war in Iraq is just one example of how the media is utilized. Secondly, the reality is that there are virtually no independent investigative media journalists left in this country. It is very rare for media to do anything other than to replay press releases or press conferences that the two major political parties hold back and forth. There is no genuine investigative independent journalism being conducted in politics in this country.

And you think that’s by design?

I do think that it has evolved into that. In my experience, most journalists go to journalism school because they want to be investigative journalists. They want to actually be part of the idea that they have about what the fourth estate should be. But because of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, because of the consolidation of the media — and by the way, that was Bill Clinton and the Democrats who led the charge on the Telecommunications Act of 1996 — it has become virtually impossible for journalists to actually conduct themselves as genuine independent journalists. There is, of course, Noam Chomsky’s groundbreaking work on manufacturing consent. I think it has evolved into that reality.

As far as the campaign-finance system exists right now, not counting hopeful changes you see, what would it take for a candidate such as yourself, outside of the two-party system, to have a serious shot at being elected president?

Well, I guess what I would say is [that] there is a growing movement in this country for peace, justice, ecology and democracy. Part of that movement, I think, is a growing awareness that we have to democratize elections in the United States of America. By that I mean the current election process is really sort of like a Disneyland version of democracy. It’s not real, and people are recognizing that. If we are going to really have democratic elections, we need access to the ballot and the debates by all alternative political parties. In addition, we need full publicly funded elections to get out the corrosive effect of this corporate cash that has become like a cancer metastasized within the body politic.

Beyond that, we need to change the voting system to instant runoff voting and proportional representation so that everybody feels as if they actually get a level of representation in their own government. We should, in my estimation, abolish the Electoral College and elect a president according to the popular vote. In addition, we need to remove the barriers to voting that have been put into place specifically around sentencing guidelines and the criminal-justice system that disenfranchises so many poor people and people of color. So that’s a broad critique of how elections are currently conducted. But I should also say that there are efforts all across the country at the local level, the county level, and the state level, of movements moving forward on each and every one of those reforms. So, even as I have a scathing and broad indictment of how U.S. elections currently operate, I actually am filled with great hope and optimism by all of the efforts I see at making elections more democratic.

Do you think if a candidate were to run, like Ross Perot did, who was independently wealthy and had views outside of the two-party mainstream thought, they could sort of go above the political system directly to the voters in the way Perot tried to?

I think so. And take a look at how well Perot did and back in ’92. And in addition to that, what Ross Perot did not do was to have a message that said, “Don’t waste your vote, invest your vote.” In other words, I think all alternative political parties, independent candidates, really need to go directly to the voters not just with our platform, and programs, and ideas, but also to go to the American people to break out of the lie that they have been told that voting for alternative parties is a wasted vote. In other words, a message that reminds the American people that systemic change in this country has always required alternative political parties in order to advance us. From the abolition of slavery, women getting the right to vote, creating the Social Security Administration, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation laws, pure food and drug laws, ending child labor, the direct election of the United States Senate, each and every one of those programs or ideas make up the very fabric of what we, today, would consider the bare minimum for a just, compassionate, and democratic society.

Yet the threads of that fabric had to be woven together by third parties. To put a fine point on it, each and every one of those programs and ideas were originally proposed by so-called third parties, alternative political parties that were willing to challenge the two-party system, notwithstanding that they were called spoilers, notwithstanding that they were called naive and unrealistic, notwithstanding that they were called dangerous radicals and un-American. So yes, I do believe that there is an opportunity to break out of this two-party stranglehold. But it’s going to take the American people being willing to vote for what they want rather than against what they hate.

These [issues] are all inextricably linked — that is, the financing of elections, the media consolidation and conspiracy that the media engaged in with the two parties to prevent any alternative views from being heard, as well as the participation in debates, and ballot access coupled with the voting system. And that’s why we need a new-generation voting rights movement in the United States that begins to speak in a unified voice for this broad range of reforms that are necessary to make elections more democratic, and more real, and more meaningful. Because the plummeting voter participation is not a function of apathy. Apathy means that it occurs when people don’t care. What is instead happening is cynicism, a very well-understood and understandable cynicism that voting really doesn’t change anybody’s lives. As Frances Fox Piven [and Richard A. Cloward] wrote in Why Americans Still Don’t Vote and Why Politicians Want It That Way, this system is not designed for meaningful participation. And we are going to have to change the system.