I think it comes down to the same reason people run with the parties to begin with: there is a tremendous amount of legal infrastructure in place blocking independent bids to office.
This is why you hear threats of the party removing him from the ticket from time to time. They likely have that power because they are a private entity.
That's why Bannon and crew are urging us to take back party infrastructure. There are more of us than them, we just forgot how to play the game.
So simultaneously, the DNC and RNC are private corporations who can nominate and deny anyone they want from their ballots, and also the only way to get on the election ballot is by being the put-forth DNC or RNC candidate?
If we have codified sauce on that, which I’ve been thinking about throwing in the face of dems as the means by which Bernie was denied, it’s a huge red pill, and should obviously be criminal racketeering/subversion.
I.e. “if you don’t let us handle the money that’s sent to your campaign, we won’t let you be on the ballot, without any regard for how many ‘votes’ you get.”
But why would he even need to use winred at all? Is that the only legal option to donate to federal campaigns?
I think it comes down to the same reason people run with the parties to begin with: there is a tremendous amount of legal infrastructure in place blocking independent bids to office.
This is why you hear threats of the party removing him from the ticket from time to time. They likely have that power because they are a private entity.
That's why Bannon and crew are urging us to take back party infrastructure. There are more of us than them, we just forgot how to play the game.
So simultaneously, the DNC and RNC are private corporations who can nominate and deny anyone they want from their ballots, and also the only way to get on the election ballot is by being the put-forth DNC or RNC candidate?
If we have codified sauce on that, which I’ve been thinking about throwing in the face of dems as the means by which Bernie was denied, it’s a huge red pill, and should obviously be criminal racketeering/subversion.
I.e. “if you don’t let us handle the money that’s sent to your campaign, we won’t let you be on the ballot, without any regard for how many ‘votes’ you get.”
Agreed there seems to be potential for a case there.