People's Party
People's Party Controversy
Questions
Founding Documents
Party Structure
Financial Information
Ballot Access
Candidates
Labor
Full Disclosure
CONTROVERSY
MUST READ:
https://petitionmpp.com/
https://petitionmpp.com/
VIDEOS:
ARTICLES:
QUESTIONS:
In addition to the issues that have been raised by "the petitioners," there are many more questions regarding the People's Party.
1. Why is the People's Party functioning less like a political party and more like a social welfare lobbyist group?
2. Why doesn't the People's Party disclose the DETAILS of all of their donors and all of their expenditures on their financial documents?
3. Do the "members" of the "People's Party" have any legal standing in relation to the corporation?
4. Why isn't the corporation that is behind the People's Party legally organized as a democratically run cooperative that is LEGALLY controlled by its "members"?
5. Is the composition of the Board of Directors subject to democratic change by vote of the members?
6. Are decisions involving expenditures subject to approval by members of the "People's Party?"
7. Does the People's Party have a published set of bylaws that govern their operation as a political party?
8. Why hasn't the People's Party submitted their 2019 Income tax return to the IRS?
9. Does the People's Party have a working group dedicated to gaining ballot access for the party?
10. Does the People's Party have a working group dedicated to electing Congressional Representatives and/or Senators in 2022 and beyond?
11. Why isn't the People's Party encouraging and supporting rank-and-file members to run for office in 2021 and 2022?
2. Why doesn't the People's Party disclose the DETAILS of all of their donors and all of their expenditures on their financial documents?
3. Do the "members" of the "People's Party" have any legal standing in relation to the corporation?
4. Why isn't the corporation that is behind the People's Party legally organized as a democratically run cooperative that is LEGALLY controlled by its "members"?
5. Is the composition of the Board of Directors subject to democratic change by vote of the members?
6. Are decisions involving expenditures subject to approval by members of the "People's Party?"
7. Does the People's Party have a published set of bylaws that govern their operation as a political party?
8. Why hasn't the People's Party submitted their 2019 Income tax return to the IRS?
9. Does the People's Party have a working group dedicated to gaining ballot access for the party?
10. Does the People's Party have a working group dedicated to electing Congressional Representatives and/or Senators in 2022 and beyond?
11. Why isn't the People's Party encouraging and supporting rank-and-file members to run for office in 2021 and 2022?
FOUNDING DOCUMENTS
Despite what Nick Brana said in the video above, when the People's Party filed their original Articles of Incorporation in the state of Michigan, they were ORIGINALLY structured as a 501(c)(4) organization. This was later amended. The corporation is now legally structured as a 527 organization.
"Because they may not expressly advocate for specific candidates with any candidate's campaign, many 527s are used to raise money to spend on issue advocacy and voter mobilization."
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION:
Why is the "People's Party" legally organized as a 527?
To access the official founding documents associated with the legal entity behind the People's Party, click on the link below,
then scroll down, make sure that "ALL FILINGS" is highlighted in gray and then click on the button that says"
"View filings"
That should bring you to this page:
"View filings"
That should bring you to this page:
| articles_of_incorporation.tif |
| peoples_party_form_8871.pdf |
The corporation was officially renamed as the "People's Party" on February 23, 2021.
The legal entity behind People's Party is legally registered as a non-profit Michigan corporation currently operating under the name: "People's Party." In addition, it currently has a number of different assumed names:
1. Draft Bernie
2. Movement For A People's Party
3. People For A Working Democracy
1. Draft Bernie
2. Movement For A People's Party
3. People For A Working Democracy
There is nothing wrong with a corporation "doing business as" (DBA) a name other than the name originally chosen by the corporation and placed on the corporation's founding documents except that it is confusing and makes it a bit more difficult to research what is really going on.
What is "The People's Party" legally organized to do?
The legally stated purpose of the corporation that is now known as the "People's Party" has changed bit by bit over time.
Despite their marketing to members and to the public, at no time has the People's Party ever stated in their legal documents that their primary purpose is to form a political party that is focused upon recruiting, promoting and supporting candidates for public office.
February 7, 2017
The information below is from the Articles of Incorporation filed in the state of Michigan. Initially, the documents refer to a social welfare organization operating as described in Section 501(c)(4) of the IRS Code. This was later amended (see below).
July 18, 2017
The information below (Restated Articles of Incorporation) was filed with the State of Michigan.
"The purposes for which the Corporation is organized is to promote the health of our democratic election system, and to advocate for a more responsive democracy, and to engage in political advocacy within the meaning of section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”). The Corporation may engage in any activity for which a corporation may be organized under the Michigan Nonprofit Corporation Act, Act 162, Public Acts of 1982, MCLA §§ 450.2101 et seq. (the “Act”). No part of the assets or net earnings of the Corporation may inure to the benefit of or be distributable to its directors, officers, or other private persons; provided, however, that the Corporation is authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered to the Corporation and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of its purposes."
July 18, 2017
The information below is from IRS Form 8871.
September 29, 2018
The information below is from the 2018 Annual Report.
November 2, 2020
The information below is from the 2020 Annual Report.
The information below does NOT appear to have been officially filed with the state of Michigan (It CANNOT be found on the Michigan state website). It can only be found as an unofficial, undated and unsigned PDF on the People's Party website. (Downloaded March 25, 2021). The original version of Article VIII is very similar to this (proposed?) amendment.
| 2017-pfwd-restated-articles-527.pdf |
The information below is from IRS Form 990-EZ filed for the years 2017 and 2018.
As of March 25, 2021, the People's Party does not seem to have filed tax returns for 2019 and 2020.
As of March 25, 2021, the People's Party does not seem to have filed tax returns for 2019 and 2020.
On Line 46 of their 2017 and 2018 IRS Form 990-EZ, "People For A Working Democracy" stated that they had NOT engaged, neither directly nor indirectly, in political campaign activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office.
What is the point of trying to start a new political party if you are not going to directly support and advocate for or against candidates for public office?
Why create a legal corporation that does not engage in political activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates if you intend to use that legal corporation to start a political party that is designed to elect candidates to office???
Inquiring minds would like to know.
What is the point of trying to start a new political party if you are not going to directly support and advocate for or against candidates for public office?
Why create a legal corporation that does not engage in political activities on behalf of or in opposition to candidates if you intend to use that legal corporation to start a political party that is designed to elect candidates to office???
Inquiring minds would like to know.
What is the corporate structure of
"The People's Party."
Who controls the corporation behind the "People's Party"?
Current organization information:
Name: People for a Working Democracy
EIN: 81-5269113
Address:
P.O. Box 68
McLean, VA 22101-0068
E-Mail: PFWDmail@gmail.com
Contact: Nicholas A. Brana
Custodian: Nicholas A. Brana
Phone: 703-288-9603 (from IRS Form 990-EZ)
The founding documents list the following corporate officers:
Chairman: Nicholas A. Brana
Secretary: Carol Ehrie Lo Patin
Treasurer: Rodrigo (Rod) Brana
They were also listed as the three members of the Board of Directors.
That has changed. The current officers and Directors are now:
Chairman: Nicholas A. Brana
Secretary: Michelle Ramirez
Treasurer: Rodrigo (Rod) Brana
PARTY STRUCTURE
What does the "People's Party" need to do to actually become a political party?
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
The text below was copied from this page on March 20, 2021:
https://peoplesparty.org/about/transparency/
https://peoplesparty.org/about/transparency/
- Reports on contributions and expenditures can be found in IRS public records. Search: People for a Working Democracy online
The EIN for the People's Party is: 81-5269113.
To find their financial information, go to the following IRS web page:
https://forms.irs.gov/app/pod/basicSearch/search?execution=e3s1&format=
The search results should be as seen below...
To find their financial information, go to the following IRS web page:
https://forms.irs.gov/app/pod/basicSearch/search?execution=e3s1&format=
- Check all three forms
- Enter the EIN: 81-5269113
- Click on "submit basic search."
The search results should be as seen below...
Click on "PEOPLE FOR A WORKING DEMOCRACY" to access the public financial reports that are detailed below...
Below is a year-by-year breakdown of the publicly available finances of the People's Party.
Contributions:
2017: $41,800
2018: $22,429
2019: $15,883
2020: $165,331
Total: $245,443
2017: $41,800
2018: $22,429
2019: $15,883
2020: $165,331
Total: $245,443
On the public documents filed with the IRS, a large percentage of Contributions and Expenditures are not listed in detail. Instead, they are listed as aggregated totals.
The vast majority (82.4%) of the money raised by the People's Party ($202,293/$245,443) was not reported in detail. Instead, it has been reported as aggregated amounts.
A substantial portion (25.4%) of the expenditures of the People's Party ($38,425/$151,553) has also not been reported in detail. Instead, it has been reported as aggregated amounts.
This is NOT to imply ANY wrongdoing.
This simply does not achieve the ideal of FULL transparency.
Download the documents below to view the details.
2017
| 2017_irs_form_990-ez.pdf |
FIRST HALF
JANUARY-JUNE 2017
JANUARY-JUNE 2017
| 2017_january-june_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $31,571
Expenditures: ($19,003)
Aggregated Contributions: $27,981.45 - 88.6%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($5,862.57) - 30.8%
Expenditures: ($19,003)
Aggregated Contributions: $27,981.45 - 88.6%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($5,862.57) - 30.8%
SECOND HALF
JULY-DECEMBER 2017
JULY-DECEMBER 2017
| 2017_july-december_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $10,229
Expenditures: ($14,051)
Aggregated Contributions: $7,679
Aggregated Expenditures: ($935)
Expenditures: ($14,051)
Aggregated Contributions: $7,679
Aggregated Expenditures: ($935)
2017 TOTALS:
Total 2017 Contributions: $41,800
Total 2017 Expenditures: ($33,054)
Total Aggregated Contributions: $35,660 - 85.3%
Total Aggregated Expenditures: ($14,986) - 45.3%
Total 2017 Expenditures: ($33,054)
Total Aggregated Contributions: $35,660 - 85.3%
Total Aggregated Expenditures: ($14,986) - 45.3%
2017 SELECTED EXPENDITURES:
QUESTIONS:
Who were the independent contractors who received the $6,368 in professional fees?
IN 2017, NO political campaign activities were conducted on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office.
2018
| 2018_irs_form_990-ez.pdf |
FIRST QUARTER
JANUARY-MARCH 2018
JANUARY-MARCH 2018
| 2018_january-march_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions:$2,724
Expenditures: ($7,023)
Aggregated Contributions: $2,724 - 100%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($3,007) - 42.8%
Expenditures: ($7,023)
Aggregated Contributions: $2,724 - 100%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($3,007) - 42.8%
SECOND QUARTER
APRIL-JUNE 2018
APRIL-JUNE 2018
| 2018_april-june_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $8,321
Expenditures: ($6,083)
Aggregated Contributions: $6,619 - 79.5%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($1,856) - 30.5%
Expenditures: ($6,083)
Aggregated Contributions: $6,619 - 79.5%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($1,856) - 30.5%
THIRD QUARTER
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2018
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2018
| 2018_july-september_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $1,564
(only 3 people donated)
Expenditures: ($5,049)
Aggregated Contributions: $0 - 0%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($1,862) - 36.9%
(only 3 people donated)
Expenditures: ($5,049)
Aggregated Contributions: $0 - 0%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($1,862) - 36.9%
FOURTH QUARTER
OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2018
OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2018
| 2018_october-december_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $9,820
Expenditures: ($6,923)
Aggregated Contributions: $6,828 - 69.5%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($2,360) - 34.1%
Expenditures: ($6,923)
Aggregated Contributions: $6,828 - 69.5%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($2,360) - 34.1%
2018 TOTALS
Total 2018 Contributions: $22,429
Total 2018 Expenditures: ($25,078)
Total 2018
Aggregated Contributions ($16,171)
72.1% of Total
Total 2018
Aggregated Expenditures ($9,085)
36.2% of Total
Total 2018 Expenditures: ($25,078)
Total 2018
Aggregated Contributions ($16,171)
72.1% of Total
Total 2018
Aggregated Expenditures ($9,085)
36.2% of Total
2018 IRS Form 990-EZ:
Total revenue (Line 9): $30,620.71
Total revenue (Line 9): $30,620.71
Based on the difference between the income information submitted on Form 8872 and the IRS Form-990-EZ, $8,191 in contributions ($30,620 - $22,429) seems to be unaccounted for in 2018. Are these dark money contributions?)
Summary of expenditures from 2018 tax return:
QUESTION:
IN 2018, Why were so many donor's addresses the same as the People's Party mailing address in McLean, Virginia?
IN 2018, NO political campaign activities were conducted on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office.
2019
As of the day this was last edited (March 20, 2021) "People For A Working Democracy" has not yet filed their 2019 IRS Form 990 (or IRS Form 990-EZ).
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS:
FIRST HALF
JANUARY-JUNE 2019
JANUARY-JUNE 2019
| 2019_january-june_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $11,736
Expenditures: ($10,058)
Aggregated Contributions: $8,241
Aggregated Expenditures: ($0)
Expenditures: ($10,058)
Aggregated Contributions: $8,241
Aggregated Expenditures: ($0)
SECOND HALF
JULY-DECEMBER 2019
JULY-DECEMBER 2019
| 2019_july-december_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $4,147
Expenditures: ($7,124)
Aggregated Contributions: $4,147 - 100%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($4,184) -58.7%
Expenditures: ($7,124)
Aggregated Contributions: $4,147 - 100%
Aggregated Expenditures: ($4,184) -58.7%
Total 2018 REPORTED Contributions: $15,883
Total 2018 REPORTED Expenditures: ($17,182)
Total 2018
Aggregated Contributions ($12,388)
78% of Total
Total 2018
Aggregated Expenditures ($4,184)
24.4% of Total
Total 2018 REPORTED Expenditures: ($17,182)
Total 2018
Aggregated Contributions ($12,388)
78% of Total
Total 2018
Aggregated Expenditures ($4,184)
24.4% of Total
2020
As of the day this was last edited (March 20, 2021) "People For A Working Democracy" has not yet filed their 2020 IRS Form 990 (or IRS Form 990-EZ).
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS:
FIRST QUARTER
JANUARY-MARCH 2020
JANUARY-MARCH 2020
Contributions: $5,311
Expenditures: ($3,925)
Aggregated Contributions ($4,101)
Aggregated Expenditures ($2,323)
Expenditures: ($3,925)
Aggregated Contributions ($4,101)
Aggregated Expenditures ($2,323)
SECOND QUARTER
APRIL-JUNE 2020
APRIL-JUNE 2020
| 2020_april-june_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $20,980
Expenditures: ($8,160)
Aggregated Contributions ($18,842)
Aggregated Expenditures ($2,482)
Expenditures: ($8,160)
Aggregated Contributions ($18,842)
Aggregated Expenditures ($2,482)
THIRD QUARTER
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2020
JULY-SEPTEMBER 2020
| 2020_july-september_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $64,832
Expenditures: ($19,369)
Aggregated Contributions ($57,298)
Aggregated Expenditures ($3,245)
Expenditures: ($19,369)
Aggregated Contributions ($57,298)
Aggregated Expenditures ($3,245)
2020 THIRD QUARTER
TOP DONORS:
2020 THIRD QUARTER
SELECTED EXPENSES:
FOURTH QUARTER
OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2020
OCTOBER-DECEMBER 2020
| 2020_october-december_contributions_and_expenditures_irs_form_8872.pdf |
Contributions: $74,208
Expenditures: ($44,785)
Aggregated Contributions ($57,833)
Aggregated Expenditures ($2,120)
Expenditures: ($44,785)
Aggregated Contributions ($57,833)
Aggregated Expenditures ($2,120)
2020 TOTALS:
Total 2020 Contributions: $165,331
Total 2020 Expenditures: ($76,239)
Total 2020
Aggregated Contributions ($138,074)
83.5% of Total
Total 2020
Aggregated Expenditures ($10,170)
13.3% of Total
Total 2020 Expenditures: ($76,239)
Total 2020
Aggregated Contributions ($138,074)
83.5% of Total
Total 2020
Aggregated Expenditures ($10,170)
13.3% of Total
2020 FOURTH QUARTER
TOP DONORS:
TOP DONORS:
2020 FOURTH QUARTER
SELECTED EXPENSES:
2021
In non-election years, the IRS requires reporting twice per year. The next required financial report will probably not be available until mid July 2021.
BALLOT ACCESS
CLICK ABOVE TO ACCESS WEBPAGE - SCREEN CAPTURED ON MARCH 24, 2021
The 11 states listed below (including Washington, D.C.) do NOT provide a process for political organizations to gain qualified status in advance of an election. Instead, in these states, an aspirant party must first field candidates using party designations. If the candidate or candidates win the requisite votes, the organization may then be recognized as an official political party. In these states, a political party can be formed only if the candidate in the general election obtains a specific number of votes. The number of votes required and type of race vary from state to state. Details can be found on the state-specific requirements pages.
Below is a (very) over-simplified summary of the effort needed to gain official recognition as a political party.
Click on the states for detailed information:
Alabama - Petition (3% of votes in last election)
Alaska - Petition (3% of votes in last election)
Arizona - Petition (21,000+)
Arkansas - Petition (10,000 signatures in 90 days)
California - Voter Registration (0.33% of registered voters)
(HERE is the latest voter registration data.)
Colorado - Voter Registration (1,000 registered voters)
(HERE is what political party transparency looks like.)
Connecticut - Certified Candidate (receives 1% of the votes)
Delaware - Voter Registration (1% of registered voters)
Florida - Voter Registration (5%) for major party (unclear for minor party)
Georgia - Petition (same as independent candidates)
Hawaii - Petition (0.1% of registered voters)
Idaho - Petition (2% of voters in last election)
Illinois - State law declared unconstitutional - unclear at this point
Indiana - Candidate for Secretary of State (receives 2% of votes)
Iowa - Candidate for President or Governor (receives 2% of votes)
Kansas - Petition (2% of votes for governor)
Kentucky - Candidate for President (2% of votes - to become political organization)
Louisiana -Voter Registration (1,000 registered voters) + $1,000 fee.
Maine - Voter Registration (5,000 registered voters)
Maryland - Petition (10,000 signatures)
Massachusetts - Voter Registration (1% of registered voters)
Michigan - Petition (31,566 signatures)
Minnesota - Petition (5% of votes in last election)
Mississippi - Simply organize and apply - one of the easiest in the nation.
Missouri - Petition (10,000 signatures)
Montana - Petition (5% of votes in last election)
Nebraska - Petition (1% of votes in last election)
Nevada - Petition (1% of votes in last election) + list of candidates
New Hampshire - Petition (3% of votes in last election)
New Jersey - General Assembly Candidates (10% of all votes)
New Mexico - Candidate for President or Governor (5% of votes) and Voter Registration (0.33%) and Petition (0.5% votes cast for Governor)
New York - Candidate for Governor (130,000 votes)
North Carolina - Petition (0.25% of votes in last election - 11,171 signatures)
North Dakota - Petition (7,000 signatures)
Ohio - Petition (1% of votes in last election, 500 in each of 8 districts)
Oklahoma - Petition (3% of votes in last election)
Oregon - Petition (22,046 signatures)
Pennsylvania - Candidate (2% of votes)
Rhode Island - Petition (5% of votes in last election)
South Carolina - Petition (5% of registered voters)
South Dakota - Petition (2.5% of votes for governor)
Tennessee - Petition (2.5% of votes for governor)
Texas - Petition (1% of votes for governor)
Utah - Petition (2,000 signatures)
Vermont - Organize in at least 10 towns
Virginia - Petition (10,000) + Statewide Candidate (10% of votes)
Washington - Does not require party affiliation.
Washington D.C. - Petition (3,000 or 1.5% of votes)
West Virginia - Candidate for Governor (received 1% of votes cast)
Wisconsin - Petition (10,000 signatures)
Wyoming - Petition (2.5% of votes for U.S. Representative)
The 11 states listed below only recognize 2 political parties. This means that NO other party has been able to achieve recognized party status.
- Alabama
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- New Jersey
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Tennessee
- Virginia
- Washington
CANDIDATES
In the past, the leaders of the People's Party have made wildly over-optimistic claims about their ability to gain official recognition as a party. More recently they have back-pedaled on their hype and have been saying something very different. It seems that the current claim is that the People's Party will be seeking to run approximately 15 select Congressional candidates in 2022. Many rumors as well as many reasonable questions surround this latest approach.
- Who will select the candidates?
- Will the candidates be selected by the "leaders" of the party or through a democratically conducted primary or convention?
- Will the candidates be rank and file members who are self-motivated to run for office or will there be an attempt to draft celebrity candidates?
- Will candidates be former Democrats who have #DemExited?
- How will the candidates run for office if the party is not recognized prior to the deadlines for candidates to file their paperwork?
A MORE REALISTIC OPTION
Waiting for the People's Party to achieve official recognition as a party in each of the 50 states BEFORE encouraging or recruiting members to run for office is unrealistic.
Motivated party members could and should seek ballot access as independent candidates. In half of the states, candidates can request that the name of a political party appear on the ballot under their name. This would actually be a great way for candidates to promote the People's Party and vice-versa.
Motivated party members could and should seek ballot access as independent candidates. In half of the states, candidates can request that the name of a political party appear on the ballot under their name. This would actually be a great way for candidates to promote the People's Party and vice-versa.
A political party designation is used when a candidate qualifies to run for office as an independent but desires that a different label be printed next to his or her name on the ballot.
Some states only allow candidates to use an officially recognized political party name on the ballot. Other states allow candidates to designate any label they choose, so long as it is not too similar to that of an existing party.
There are 24 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that allow candidates to use political party designations other than those of officially recognized parties in non-presidential elections.
In fact, in the 10 states (plus Washington D.C.) that are underlined below, that is exactly what a political party must do in order to achieve recognized status. Candidates must qualify for ballot access as independents and then request that the party name be specified under the candidate's name on the ballot.
Some states only allow candidates to use an officially recognized political party name on the ballot. Other states allow candidates to designate any label they choose, so long as it is not too similar to that of an existing party.
There are 24 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that allow candidates to use political party designations other than those of officially recognized parties in non-presidential elections.
In fact, in the 10 states (plus Washington D.C.) that are underlined below, that is exactly what a political party must do in order to achieve recognized status. Candidates must qualify for ballot access as independents and then request that the party name be specified under the candidate's name on the ballot.
The People's Party could (and should) be encouraging and helping rank-and-file members to run for office and seek personal ballot access as Independent candidates. These candidates could then request to have their name associated with the People's Party on the ballot.
In the other states, which do not allow political party designation on the ballot (unless the party has been officially recognized), Independent candidates could still promote the People's Party and the party could still endorse them.
The need for candidates to acquire signatures from registered voters on their petitions for ballot access could be combined with promoting the People's Party by getting either signatures on ballot access petitions for the party or encouraging people to switch their voter registration status to the People's Party.
In any case, many opportunities are being lost with every moment that passes.
In the other states, which do not allow political party designation on the ballot (unless the party has been officially recognized), Independent candidates could still promote the People's Party and the party could still endorse them.
The need for candidates to acquire signatures from registered voters on their petitions for ballot access could be combined with promoting the People's Party by getting either signatures on ballot access petitions for the party or encouraging people to switch their voter registration status to the People's Party.
In any case, many opportunities are being lost with every moment that passes.
LABOR
The articles below should make it crystal clear that, despite their rhetoric, the "People's Party" does NOT speak for organized labor.
THREE ARTICLES THAT ARE WORTH READING:
Article #1:
https://socialistorganizer.org/2020/07/31/our-assessment-of-the-movement-for-a-peoples-party/
https://socialistorganizer.org/2020/07/31/our-assessment-of-the-movement-for-a-peoples-party/
Excerpts:
“Our first objective is to promote running independent labor-community candidates beginning in 2019 at a local and state level around a platform that embraces workers’ and communities’ pressing demands. The explicit aim is to advance the effort to build a mass party for working people rooted in unions, youth, and communities of the oppressed. The platforms of these independent candidates need to be discussed and approved by labor-community assemblies, and the candidates must be answerable to these assemblies and to the coalitions formed for this purpose."
"In order to create such a mass party for working people, we will organize to raise awareness in the unions of the need to break with the Democratic Party.”
"We are just beginning the process of organizing independent labor-community assemblies that are involved in critical labor and community struggles; that run candidates on a local level who are mandated by, and are answerable to, these assemblies; and that are the building blocks for a new mass-based independent working class party."
"We reminded our MPP partners that when we formed the LCCIP in September 2018 we had come up with a compromise formulation — “for an independent party of and for working people, youth and communities of the oppressed” — that left the designation of the name and character of the new independent party to be decided at some point in the future after the patient work laying the groundwork for the new party."
"Calling the independent labor- and community-based party that we seek to build (on the basis of the AFL-CIO resolutions) a People’s Party is not an option for us. We had made our objection to this name crystal clear to our MPP partners from Day One."
"The editorial board of The Organizer opposes this political orientation. Building a new party of the type we seek is not a short-term effort; it’s a long, careful, and sustained process that has to involve the direct participation and leadership by organizations representing labor unions and communities of the oppressed. Key stakeholders in such a party cannot be mere endorsers subordinate to a process in which their input is not central. We have only just begun to identify which organizations are likely to commit to this process, let alone bring them fully on board."
"In order to create such a mass party for working people, we will organize to raise awareness in the unions of the need to break with the Democratic Party.”
"We are just beginning the process of organizing independent labor-community assemblies that are involved in critical labor and community struggles; that run candidates on a local level who are mandated by, and are answerable to, these assemblies; and that are the building blocks for a new mass-based independent working class party."
"We reminded our MPP partners that when we formed the LCCIP in September 2018 we had come up with a compromise formulation — “for an independent party of and for working people, youth and communities of the oppressed” — that left the designation of the name and character of the new independent party to be decided at some point in the future after the patient work laying the groundwork for the new party."
"Calling the independent labor- and community-based party that we seek to build (on the basis of the AFL-CIO resolutions) a People’s Party is not an option for us. We had made our objection to this name crystal clear to our MPP partners from Day One."
"The editorial board of The Organizer opposes this political orientation. Building a new party of the type we seek is not a short-term effort; it’s a long, careful, and sustained process that has to involve the direct participation and leadership by organizations representing labor unions and communities of the oppressed. Key stakeholders in such a party cannot be mere endorsers subordinate to a process in which their input is not central. We have only just begun to identify which organizations are likely to commit to this process, let alone bring them fully on board."
Excerpts:
QUESTION:
"You said that there were eighty unions at the Labor Party’s founding that represented roughly half a million workers. It seems like you were trying to make this a party that was — concretely and substantively, not just symbolically or rhetorically — composed of and led by actual leaders, organizers, and rank-and-file members of the labor movement. Can you speak about that kind of model and how it’s different from other existing parties?"
ANSWER:
"That was central to what we felt had to happen. We felt that if you have a party of labor, you have to have a significant percentage of the labor movement in the room and at the table at all times. We felt that the people who were going to move this were people who were really representative of the actually-existing labor movement. Those were the folks that we needed to win over, and not necessarily the top national leaders.
The base of the Labor Party was always local and regional, leaders of different union formations. Those are the folks who could really move the issue and who could really speak on behalf of a constituency. So that was very important.
And then Tony always had this dictum that “If you can’t get it passed in your own union hall, don’t bring it to a broader organization.” This hit on the need to connect whatever politics you were doing to a real institutional and living and breathing constituency.
So that was just our style from the very beginning. It’s easy to get a hundred leftists together and put together a shopping list of political issues that we want to organize around. You can lay that out, but it doesn’t have any kind of reality beyond the names on that list and the issues on that list."
"You said that there were eighty unions at the Labor Party’s founding that represented roughly half a million workers. It seems like you were trying to make this a party that was — concretely and substantively, not just symbolically or rhetorically — composed of and led by actual leaders, organizers, and rank-and-file members of the labor movement. Can you speak about that kind of model and how it’s different from other existing parties?"
ANSWER:
"That was central to what we felt had to happen. We felt that if you have a party of labor, you have to have a significant percentage of the labor movement in the room and at the table at all times. We felt that the people who were going to move this were people who were really representative of the actually-existing labor movement. Those were the folks that we needed to win over, and not necessarily the top national leaders.
The base of the Labor Party was always local and regional, leaders of different union formations. Those are the folks who could really move the issue and who could really speak on behalf of a constituency. So that was very important.
And then Tony always had this dictum that “If you can’t get it passed in your own union hall, don’t bring it to a broader organization.” This hit on the need to connect whatever politics you were doing to a real institutional and living and breathing constituency.
So that was just our style from the very beginning. It’s easy to get a hundred leftists together and put together a shopping list of political issues that we want to organize around. You can lay that out, but it doesn’t have any kind of reality beyond the names on that list and the issues on that list."
Article #3:
Excerpts:
“[W]e are the ones we have been waiting for.” No one is coming to save us from the tyranny of US presidents, murderous police and conservative courts and judges. “[W]e are the ones we have been waiting for.” No one is coming to save us from the backlash of imperialist wars and decades of bigotry and Jim Crow laws. “[W]e are the ones we have been waiting for.” No one except for us is going to advocate for affordable housing, universal healthcare, an across-the-board living wage or put a stop to imprisoning our Mexican neighbor’s children! “[W]e are the ones we have been waiting for.”
"So, who are we and what do we stand for?
The LCIP Statement of Purpose says we are “… political, trade union, and community activists from different political backgrounds…” who “… decided to constitute ourselves as the Labor and Community for an Independent Party (LCIP) with two intertwined objectives.” These “two intertwined objectives” are what we stand for, and what we ask everyone who joins us in organizing LCIP to agree with: (1) “… promote running independent labor-community candidates … at a local and state level around a platform that embraces workers’ and communities’ pressing demands.” I also add the House of Representatives because we need working-class Representatives to legislate in working-class interests."
"(2) “Our second objective is to promote widely in the trade union movement a committee [or, as I would say, committees] that advocates for a Labor-Based Political Party. A resolution adopted by the October 2017 national convention of the AFL-CIO affirmed that, “whether the candidates are elected from the Republican or Democratic Party, the interests of Wall Street have been protected and advanced, while the interests of labor and working people have generally been set back.”
A second convention resolution concluded that, “the time has passed when we can passively settle for the lesser of two evils politics.” The committee’s goal will be to promote the discussion inside the labor movement about the need to break with the “lesser of two evils politics” and to create a “Labor-Based Political Party”
"So, who are we and what do we stand for?
The LCIP Statement of Purpose says we are “… political, trade union, and community activists from different political backgrounds…” who “… decided to constitute ourselves as the Labor and Community for an Independent Party (LCIP) with two intertwined objectives.” These “two intertwined objectives” are what we stand for, and what we ask everyone who joins us in organizing LCIP to agree with: (1) “… promote running independent labor-community candidates … at a local and state level around a platform that embraces workers’ and communities’ pressing demands.” I also add the House of Representatives because we need working-class Representatives to legislate in working-class interests."
"(2) “Our second objective is to promote widely in the trade union movement a committee [or, as I would say, committees] that advocates for a Labor-Based Political Party. A resolution adopted by the October 2017 national convention of the AFL-CIO affirmed that, “whether the candidates are elected from the Republican or Democratic Party, the interests of Wall Street have been protected and advanced, while the interests of labor and working people have generally been set back.”
A second convention resolution concluded that, “the time has passed when we can passively settle for the lesser of two evils politics.” The committee’s goal will be to promote the discussion inside the labor movement about the need to break with the “lesser of two evils politics” and to create a “Labor-Based Political Party”
TWO VIDEOS
THAT ARE WORTH WATCHING...
THAT ARE WORTH WATCHING...
FULL DISCLOSURE
The information on this page was compiled by James Roguski on 3/20/2021 and last updated on 3/26/2021.
The information presented above is simply publicly available data that is curated here in support of transparency.
If you find any errors, please contact me directly so that I may correct them.
I have never officially been an active member of the People's Party. I have never participated in their Slack channel. I did download a version of their mobile app and participate in a number of their app-based "votes".
I have been on their mailing list for years and I am supportive of their efforts, but my opinion is that their hopes, dreams, goals and plans are not grounded in the reality of party formation.
I have extensively investigated the requirements of ballot access for political parties. My research brought me to the conclusion that forming a viable new party would be (at least) a decades long process unless a NUMBER of powerful personalities (think Bernie, Trump, Teddy Roosevelt, Ross Perot, etc.) decided to lead the effort.
This is primarily because 20% of the states require party-affiliated candidates to receive votes in actual elections in order for parties to be recognized in the states. (See ballot access above.)
Last year (2020) I decided to follow a different path.
I have reached out to people associated with the People's Party to let them know that I will be more than happy to support and promote any and all members of the People's Party who decide to run for office.
They talk about electoral politics.
They talk about unifying people from all walks of life.
They talk about battling the duopoly.
I am trying to do the same, but in a manner that I think has a better chance of electoral success.
Please check out my work and give me your honest feedback.
I welcome constructive criticism, ideas and suggestions.
I stand ready to support any member of the People's Party who runs for Congress in 2022.
Time is passing quickly.
They need to get moving.
James Roguski
310-619-3055
The information presented above is simply publicly available data that is curated here in support of transparency.
If you find any errors, please contact me directly so that I may correct them.
I have never officially been an active member of the People's Party. I have never participated in their Slack channel. I did download a version of their mobile app and participate in a number of their app-based "votes".
I have been on their mailing list for years and I am supportive of their efforts, but my opinion is that their hopes, dreams, goals and plans are not grounded in the reality of party formation.
I have extensively investigated the requirements of ballot access for political parties. My research brought me to the conclusion that forming a viable new party would be (at least) a decades long process unless a NUMBER of powerful personalities (think Bernie, Trump, Teddy Roosevelt, Ross Perot, etc.) decided to lead the effort.
This is primarily because 20% of the states require party-affiliated candidates to receive votes in actual elections in order for parties to be recognized in the states. (See ballot access above.)
Last year (2020) I decided to follow a different path.
I have reached out to people associated with the People's Party to let them know that I will be more than happy to support and promote any and all members of the People's Party who decide to run for office.
They talk about electoral politics.
They talk about unifying people from all walks of life.
They talk about battling the duopoly.
I am trying to do the same, but in a manner that I think has a better chance of electoral success.
Please check out my work and give me your honest feedback.
I welcome constructive criticism, ideas and suggestions.
I stand ready to support any member of the People's Party who runs for Congress in 2022.
Time is passing quickly.
They need to get moving.
James Roguski
310-619-3055
