Cornel West and Harlan Crow
I follow Cornel West on Twitter and was surprised to see him posting a defense of his accepting a campaign contribution from Harlan Crow. If you aren't a US news junkie you may have no idea who Harlan Crow is, but Crow has been in the news lately for his lavishly inappropriate "gifts" to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He's also a major donor to the No Labels party, which is aiming to offer a centrist alternative to Biden v. Trump next year.
It's not unusual, but is also controversial, when a right-wing individual/organization donates to left-wing candidates. Observers often presume that the true purpose of these donations is to "spoil" the race by splitting the left and allowing the right-wing candidate to win.
As Cornel West decided to run for president as an independent, without party support, I'd already written that he's going to need the support of at least one billionaire to get on the ballots of 50 states plus DC. Ballot access is expensive and complicated if you aren't running as a Democrat or Republican. So I'm not surprised he's asking billionaires for donations.
But there's a backlash among potential West supporters who view this as yet more unethical conduct by Crow that will now taint West. This feels like "inside baseball" to me, but it is fair to judge a candidate in part by where their donations come from, because it is typical in the US for politicians to favor their donors over their constituents. Somebody's got to pay the bills for your campaign, or you won't have a campaign.
I'm not (yet) a supporter of Cornel West, especially because right now I'm still stuck on wanting a woman president. But I wish him, and anyone running for president, luck in getting on the ballot. Ballot access rules are probably THE main reason we have a political duopoly in the US. Some states do run their elections differently, and each state makes its own ballot access rules, but in recent presidential elections only Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans have won ballot access in all 50 states plus DC.
It's not unusual, but is also controversial, when a right-wing individual/organization donates to left-wing candidates. Observers often presume that the true purpose of these donations is to "spoil" the race by splitting the left and allowing the right-wing candidate to win.
As Cornel West decided to run for president as an independent, without party support, I'd already written that he's going to need the support of at least one billionaire to get on the ballots of 50 states plus DC. Ballot access is expensive and complicated if you aren't running as a Democrat or Republican. So I'm not surprised he's asking billionaires for donations.
But there's a backlash among potential West supporters who view this as yet more unethical conduct by Crow that will now taint West. This feels like "inside baseball" to me, but it is fair to judge a candidate in part by where their donations come from, because it is typical in the US for politicians to favor their donors over their constituents. Somebody's got to pay the bills for your campaign, or you won't have a campaign.
I'm not (yet) a supporter of Cornel West, especially because right now I'm still stuck on wanting a woman president. But I wish him, and anyone running for president, luck in getting on the ballot. Ballot access rules are probably THE main reason we have a political duopoly in the US. Some states do run their elections differently, and each state makes its own ballot access rules, but in recent presidential elections only Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans have won ballot access in all 50 states plus DC.