No Labels, a nonprofit organization trying to recruit third-party candidates to run for president this year, should consider changing its brand to No Candidate.
Two weeks after the group's 800 intentionally unidentified “delegates” allegedly voted in a closed-door virtual meeting to advance plans to find a candidate. Potential candidates have responded to No Labels with “No Thank You” one after another.
And there is a worrying shift in messaging from No Labels, which has been pushing two key issues since last year. Not wanting to become a spoiler to help former President Donald Trump defeat President Joe Biden, the group plans to only endorse candidates if they have a good chance of winning the election.
Critics, and many of those who are increasingly concerned, believe that the people running No Labels have no direction and are stubbornly clinging to a plan that will ultimately tilt the field in Trump's favor. This suggests that there may be And some suggest that financial incentives, such as six-figure salaries for those in power and big contracts for consultants, are driving it all.
Is No Labels really a lucrative fraud disguised as a citizens' movement? It's starting to look like that.
No Labels lost its way in the 2024 election with few strong candidates
Richard J. Davis, a former Watergate prosecutor who served in the Jimmy Carter administration, worked with No Labels, which was launched in 2010 and focused on getting lawmakers to cooperate in a bipartisan manner. Ta.
Davis wrote an op-ed in The Hill this week saying the group has lost its way, become “victims of its own arrogance” and, if it continues, will likely help Trump win the presidency. Ta.
“We're running out of reliable candidates,” Davis told me. “Part of the reason for keeping this going is, in their minds, to give them leverage and give them something to negotiate with the Biden campaign. There's no good reason to keep it going.”
Davis said he believes No Labels will have to “stand down” if it can't find a credible candidate.
Are No Labels election saboteurs?No Labels says it doesn't want to be a spoiler for the 2024 election. It's time to prove it.
No Labels, which has previously responded to my questions while keeping its donors and activities confidential, remained silent this week and declined to answer questions about its timeline for action.
No Labels keeps its financial details secret. It doesn't help their cause.
One of the questions I had for No Labels was about money: salaries and contracts. Although No Labels appears to be a political party that is required to file monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission, the group only needs to file a nonprofit 990 tax form with the IRS each year. The most recent applications available to the public are for 2021.
Our understanding of the group's financials is therefore more than two years out of date.
This, combined with the organization's insistence on keeping its donors secret, has created a great deal of suspicion and distrust of organizations that continue to claim to have good intentions.
The Daily Beast reported in November that it had obtained No Labels' 2022 tax forms. It showed that in a year in which the group raised $21.2 million, top staff were paid six-figure salaries and founder Nancy Jacobson was receiving $300,000 a year. Jacobson's husband, Mark Penn, runs a polling firm that consults for NoLabels. The company was paid $428,100 in 2021, according to that year's Form 990.
Penn, a former strategist for Bill and Hillary Clinton, met with Trump to discuss polling during his first impeachment in 2019 and also spoke with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last year. He made headlines again when he wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal urging him to run for office. The president once again dismissed Biden as incapable of defeating Trump.
Is it any wonder that the word “grift” comes up so many times?
No Labels originally planned an in-person convention for everyone to see outdoors in Dallas next month, but canceled in November. Last week, the group posted a video announcing the formation of a 12-member “Party from the Country Committee” that will meet with potential candidates and recommend them for representation.
Again, it's all secret. We don't know how that happens.
End Citizens United, a nonprofit group that works to “extract big money from politics,” denounced the commission as an “anti-democratic” move by “corrupt black-market crooks.” End Citizens United sued No Labels in January, demanding disclosure of its donors.
Jonas Edwards Jenks, a spokesman for End Citizens United, said he has been asked multiple times to speculate about No Labels' motives.
MAGA loves Trump's lies:Trump supporters love the lies he tells during his rallies. The rest of the voters won't.
“What always comes up is this is a frustration,” he told me. “They use this to continue to raise money, line their own pockets and keep their names in the news.”
Politico reported last June that a former No Labels employee identified Harlan Crowe as one of the group's financiers. If that name rings a bell, it's because Mr. Crow is a megadonor to the Republican Party who was exposed last year for providing free luxury vacations and private jet trips to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
What is the real motivation behind the no-label movement?
When it comes to keeping your name in the news, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie last week became the only prominent political brand not ruling out a no-label run. Christie said on a podcast hosted by Democratic political strategist David Axelrod.Nothing can stop you at the moment. ”
Mr. Christie, a former adviser to President Trump, became a fierce critic of the former president, and on January 10, he withdrew from the Republican primary before anyone could vote for or against Mr. Trump. Is he really the man to defeat both Trump and Biden? Short answer: no.
This is the fear for critics of No Labels, that someone like Christie could enter the race and collect enough anti-Trump protest votes from Republicans and independents that would flow to Biden and Trump. This may make victory possible. Some think that may be an unintended consequence. Some wonder if that was ever important.
Kate DeGruyter, a spokeswoman for the centre-left think tank Third Way, said the secrecy surrounding No Labels made it difficult to discern the true motives. The group could have held a public convention where the public could watch.
“Instead, we decided to recreate the model of the smoke-filled rooms that the major political parties removed decades ago,” DeGruyter said. “What I found really concerning is that even in the wording of the commission's announcement, we have moved away from the wording that we will only move forward if we can win.
Time is running out for No Labels to do what they say they will do.
Good ideas can become obsolete over time.
No Labels has been around for 14 years. It accomplished something, got people talking about bipartisanship, and encouraged lawmakers to actually legislate instead of getting caught up in constant political skirmishes. That's something to be proud of.
rest? There aren't that many. No Labels turned to dubious schemes with noble intentions. They spent months spouting messages saying “trust us” without giving us any reason to trust them.
It does not fit calculation. If there is no label, you will not be able to register the winning ticket in the field. They distanced themselves from the claim that they were “doing everything they could to win.” Now it looks like they're just there to stay. It could be about money, relevance, leverage. It doesn't matter anymore.
If No Labels is what they claim, now is the time to abandon the 2024 presidential vote. Otherwise, what critics have been warning us about all along is “No Labels.”
Follow USA TODAY election columnist Chris Brennan on X (formerly known as Twitter): @ChrisBrennan
