Apparently Mike Feinstein's emails from several hours ago are not being allowed through to the SGA list. I don't know why..... So I am forwarding them so delegates have the benefit of reading them Linda

*From:*Mike Feinstein <mfeinstein@feinstein.org> *Subject:**Re: [GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discuss ID 155: Endorsement Policy Amendment: GPCA Endorsements for General Election Candidates* *Date:*March 30, 2018 at 9:26:03 AM PDT *To:*GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes@sfgreens.org>

Dear fellow Greens

I am voting no on this proposal for several reasons, as explained below.

...

Background

The Green Party of California is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates who have good Green values and who take no corporate money:

This is not true. Many Green Party members who are candidates “have good Green values” and “take no corporate money”. On the county level, they have been endorsed by county Green Parties in down-ticket races.

On the state party level, they used to win our primaries when we had partisan primaries, and since Top Two came in, the GPCA endorsed a slate of such candidates for statewide in 2014. (more about that later)

Clearly the explanatory text for this background text is sloppily written. Presumably it is meant to say “The GPCA is currently prohibited from endorsing candidates WHO ARE NOT GREEN PARTY MEMBERS AND who have good Green values and who take no corporate money”

So IF that was what was meant, then there should have been some analysis about this point, that is actually grounded in party facts and past reasoning, to understand why the current policy is what it is, and then argue why it should be changed.

The facts are that under the current policy, many county Green Parties have their own rules about endorsement. This is a very controversial issue, because giving away the Green Party endorsement creates a disincentive for candidates to run as Greens. For that reason some county Green Parties have decided to endorse down ticket candidates from other parties, and some county parties have not.

One of the reasons the GPCA has left it up to the county parties on this question, is that those races don’t directly affect the GPCA’s ballot status.

But on the state party level, one of the two ways the GPCA retains ballot status is to receive at least 2% in a statewide race - in the general election before Top Two and in the primary election since Top Two. Because of this, it is in the GPCA’s interest has not been to give away its endorsement to non-Green candidates that don’t help the party receive that 2%; but instead to recruit viable, credible candidates for as many of those seats as possible, in order to give the party the best chance at receiving 2%.

...

the GPCA needs visibility, in a positive way, and putting our name on endorsement lists of good candidates is one way to get the Green Party name in the public eye.

By itself, this is not reason to change the party’s statewide candidate endorsement policy. There are dozens if not hundreds of ways of publicizing the GPCA, that don’t have the downsides of discouraging people from running as Greens.

...

The GPCA wants to help voters vote for good candidates, even in races where we have no candidate.

There is nothing in our party rules or documents that states this.

...

For instance, the Peace and Freedom Party can and does endorse Green Party candidates in state

Examples? This is an incredibly reckless and FALSE assertion. The Peace and Freedom Party has NEVER endorsed a statewide Green Party candidate. This was confirmed today to me by a few long time P&F leaders.

Yet this is what this proposal is based upon?????

...

and federal races, but the GPCA is prohibited from endorsing Peace and Freedom candidates. The GPCA currently cannot endorse candidates with No Party Preference or any other voter registration, even when we have no candidate running in the race.

So what?

...

The GPCA cannot help voters differentiate between good candidates who are aligned with Green values and take no corporate money and bad candidates (who may speak well) from the two-party system.

So that is the GPCA’s primary responsibility?

Again, we have left this option for endorsement for down-ticket races, but one reason we don’t get into this on the state party level is that we need credible candidates to run Green to get our 2%.

...

The current endorsement policy is confusing: county parties are not prohibited from endorsing candidates who are not Green, but the state party is;

That is not confusing, it is a statement of fact. Obviously the author’s of this proposal were not confused, as they were able to state what the current rule is.

...

in addition, it precludes a possible endorsement even in the face of grassroots interest.

Yes, because party delegates decided 43-6-2 that it was a bad idea to endorse statewide candidates from other parties, again in part because it is a disincentive to run as a Green if you can get the party’s support without it.

...

The current endorsement policy was promulgated in the pre-Top-Two era, and, if left unreformed, will further hobble party-building efforts in California.

This is said without substantiation. Another case of reckless rhetoric in what should be a factually-based background to this proposal.

...

Changing the endorsement policy would advance the party’s attempts to implement Proportional Representation

Huh? There is no substantiation for this whatsoever. It is just said in thin air. .

The reality is that the GPCA, Peace & Freedom Party and the Libertarian Party already work together to advance proportional representation.

...

so that we can have a multi-party system and not a two-party system.

????????????

...

By expanding our endorsement options, we will demonstrate that we will work in coalitions

This betrays a lack knowledge of GPCA history with P&F and the Libertarians. For several years, in addition to supporting proportional representation, the three parties have worked together to take common positions and negotiate with the state legislature on several bills, including those that have affected county central committees, and how ballot status is retained under Top Two.

In other words, where we’ve had common interest, we already get together. In June 2013 there was even a joint meeting of reps from the three parties that followed the Napa GA.

Additionally many individual Greens work with candidates of other parties, and on the grassroots level that coalition-work speaks for itself.

...

and will endorse candidates who have green values, but who choose other political party affiliations.

Which is a disincentive for them to run Green. If you can get the milk for free, you won’t buy the cow.

...

As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet who have no track record with the Green Party

Yes, that has happened in the Governor’s race this year with the two individuals who have made it on the ballot as Greens.

Does that mean we should endorse Delaine Eastin instead? She apparently is anti-corporate, as many of the Berniecrat groups have endorsed her. Why isn’t she on the GPCA SGA ballot?

...

or allied organizations are able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best candidate.

This reasoning shows an even further lack of knowledge of GPCA history, which is not surprising since it was sponsored by a county party full of people who have no history with the GPCA.

In every election year since 1994 - EXCEPT THIS YEAR - where the statewide constitutional offices were up for election, the GPCA (through the CCWG) conducted an organized outreach plan to identify in advance of the filing period, a credible slate of candidates for statewide office. Then we would go into the primary season united around that slate, and as a result did not have contested primaries for statewide constitutional office, with only one exception (Gov 2010, when Deacon Alexander ran against Laura Wells, who was the ‘slate choice’).

Under Top Two , the one time we had the statewide constitutional offices up for election before 2018 was in 2014. Now we we were looking at additional challenges, because the ballot-qualification rules changed under Top Two, making it much harder for Greens to get on the ballot.

The GPCA endorsement process in 2014 was not only predicated on finding a credible slate of Greens for statewide races in general, but doing so in advance of the signature-gathering period so that we could unite around them during the signature-gathering period, get more signatures for each and reduce the cost for them to get on the ballot, and also leave more funds for them to purchase their candidate statements in the Voter Information Guide. Furthermore the early endorsement would then also make them eligible for GPCA Campaign Support Funding, so they could use that to help purchase more words for their candidate statement in the Voter Information Guide.

http://www.cagreens.org/ga/2013-06/2014-election-strategy

Now what has happened for 2018 is that for the first time in our party’s history, the GPCA has failed this most basic task to have a proactive process to recruit serious candidates (the blame for this colossal failure lies directly with the CCWG and the CC) and instead is opening the door to a policy that will discourage serious candidates from running as Greens, because they can get the Green endorsement anyway.

This is a doubling-down on the party’s 2017 failure to plan for 2018.

...

Moreover, given that there are many public perceptions over which Greens have very little control, such as being marginalized or cast as “spoilers” or “third-party” candidates who “can’t win,” the endorsement area is one we can control.

So the authors of this proposal are now arguing that we should be endorsing non-Greens over Greens?

Apparently they want us to pass a policy that encourages people to not run as Greens in the first place, then use that to endorse non-Greens over the people that do choose to run as Greens?

This would be an ideal strategy for someone who wanted to cause the GPCA to lose its ballot status.

...

We can avoid marginalizing ourselves as people who are only interested in the label “Green Party,” not the green values that we share with millions of ordinary folks in the nation and certainly in California.

The reason we started the Green Party in the United States was that there were millions of people who had green values, but not a political party based upon them. We want candidates to decide this is a party worth running in. It is hard enough already to get viable, credible candidates to decide to run as Greens. This strategy undermines the reason for people to run as Greens in races where we keep ballot status.

...

Furthermore, it is common advice in social media,

Seriously????? The intellectual foundation of this proposal is based upon social media ‘likes’????

...

for example (and even in life), that if you want likes, followers and friends, you’ve got to like, follow and friend others, as long as you stay true to your values. We need to reciprocate and be proactive, not sit back and wait for everyone to switch to “team Green Party,” while we display an unwelcoming attitude.

We are a welcoming party to anyone who embraces the Ten Key Values.

...

People want a new party, but our current restrictive endorsement procedures

I have been involved with this party since 1988, have registered thousands of people as Greens, have been the state party clearinghouse coordinator, have answered the party’s phones and emails, and have been a party spokesperson and an elected Green to public office. In all of those roles and more, I don’t recall a single example of a person saying they were interested in the Green Party who asked about our endorsement policy for non-Greens, and/or for whom that was a ‘deal breaker’ in any sense of the word.

...

make us look as if we do not want to be an “umbrella party” or “big tent” for all people who are aligned with our values and stances.

NGOs like the Sierra Club or the League of Conservation Voters (or others) are big tents for people with green values. Political parties are different organs, they are partisan and have to do with electoral strategy. People who are green values are found in many political parties, for various different strategic reasons. Unless we convince people to be registered Greens and run as Green candidates, we fall off the ballot and are no longer an option for people with green values. This proposal to change our party’s endorsement procedure makes it easier for people to get a Green Party ‘seal of approval’ and not join our party and not run as Greens.

If I wanted to infiltrate the Green Party and disembowel it from within, this is one strategy I would pursue.

For all the reasons above, I am voting no.

Mike Feinstein SGA Delegate GPLAC