In the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama's involvement with
Chicago's extremist "New Party," online literature from the Party likely
reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to
commit financially to membership.
This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the
question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing
for the affirmative, Kurtz demonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.
First, there's a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz
originally raised the question of Obama's involvement with the New Party
back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved
and referred to the allegation as a "crackpot smear." Ben Smith, then at
Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel
Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party
because the New Party didn't have members.
On Thursday, Kurtz announced the discovery of new documents that supported his original claim. In particular, he found minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting which read:



Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative
District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He
signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement
from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Friday, Ben Smith conceded that this proves the White House was wrong
when it claimed in 2008 that Obama had never sought an endorsement.
However, Joel Rogers is sticking to his claim that the New Party never
had members, telling Ben Smith, "'I have no idea what the Chicago people
were saying about him being a member,' he said. 'We didn’t have
membership, it wasn’t a membership organization.'"
The problem with this is that the New Party website--earlier drafts
of which still exist in the internet archive--mention membership
repeatedly and, as we'll see, even define what membership meant. Here's
the 1999 version of the New Party website, specifically the "Join the New Party" page. Let me pull a few quotes that seem pertinent:

Transforming the face of American politics is a long, hard task. Your membership dollars can help us make each step of this process a reality

[*][T]he New Party's work depends on our members.[/*]

Most New Party members join as a monthly sustainer.

Sustainer pledges are automatically deducted from members' credit cards

All New Party members receive a free subscription to our quarterly newsletter

If you have any questions about the New Party that weren't answered on our site, or if you want to know if your membership is current, please contact our membership coordinator

[/list]
There's also a "Chapters & Members" page which gives a link if you want to "Become an At-Large Member." Here's the at-large member form
which is addressed to the New Party headquarters in Brooklyn "ATTN:
Membership Services." The form also notes that a one-time contribution
of $36 is considered "basic membership." The "Jobs and Internships" page has a job listing for Executive Director which reads, "With close to 20,000 members and a growing staff (now 25), the organization is poised to elect progressive majorities in cities across the country..."
What is evident looking at these old websites is that membership in
the New Party was contingent on making a donation. That is spelled out
even more clearly on this 1997 New Party web page titled "http://www.igc.apc.org/newparty/profile.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">New Party Profile." It reads in part:

The New Party is run by dues-paying members, who are organized
into chapters. The national organization provides support for
chapter growth and coordination. Every member gets one vote.
Members


From 1992 through early 1997, the New Party grew to 10,000 members.
Growth has been accelerating-membership doubled each of the last
two years-and we hope to be at 20,000 by the end of 1997.

Clearly the New Party did have members. Its membership was based on
dues. And dues-paying members were allowed to vote. This completely
contradicts every part of the statement Joel Rogers gave to Ben Smith in
2008 and this week. As the founder of the group, there's no way he
could have been unaware of this, so we must conclude he was
intentionally not telling the truth.
But the fact that New Party members were "dues-paying" suggests
something else. Let's examine the statement Stanley Kurtz discovered
once again:

Barack Obama... signed the New Party “Candidate Contract”... He also joined the New Party.



Here is the New Party of Illinois "Candidate Contract"
listed on a website in 1999. We can't be completely sure, but this is
likely the same or similar to the document Obama signed in 1996. Note
that the contract has two parts. The first part stipulates what the New
Party will do for the candidate. The second part lays out what the
candidate is expected to do for the New Party. And right there,
consistent with everything else we've seen, item #2 says "Join the New
Party as a dues-paying member." Here's a screenshot:



Based on the various statements on the Party's website and the
"Candidate Contract" Obama signed, it's clear that joining the New Party
is synonymous with making a monetary contribution (of at least $36).
The meeting minutes say Obama "joined the New Party," so we can say with
near certainty that, like all the other members, he paid to join.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/08/New-Party-Literature-Suggests-Obama-Paid-Dues-to-Join

View comments (23)