Foxworth: Why are you considering running for office? And why a campaign with multiple parties?

Zeese: I'm considering running for the U.S. Senate because neither of the two major parties represent the interests of a majority of Americans. According to the June 17 New York Times, only 19% of people responding to a poll felt that Congress shared their priorities – so we need new voices that represent the peoples priorities. I'm running to represent multiple parties – a Unity Campaign – because we need to join together to challenge the two party system that is undermining American democracy and limiting voters choices. We need a vibrant democracy not an anemic one.

Each of the parties represent values that are important and we agree on critical issues. The Green Party's (www.mdgreens.org/) ten key values are a common sense outline of where our country needs to go. I support their values wholeheartedly. The Populist Party (www.populistpartymd.org/) stands for economic fairness for working families and recognizes how the U.S. has rigged our tax laws, finance system and corporate welfare to help the wealthiest while shrinking the middle class and undermining those whose work makes our country great. And the Libertarian Party (www.md.lp.org/) emphasizes the central value of liberty – freedom – which is under attack in the United States with laws like the Patriot Act. We need to consider the question of liberty in every action the government takes because it is our basic freedoms that unleash the creativity, entrepreneurship and greatness of Americans.

During this exploratory phase I am getting very positive response to the Unity run bringing the Greens, Populists and Libertarians together. There are some in each Party who want to run pure with only their Party – their view is: 'we can't associate with THEM – they are so different – we need to advance our Party.' There is some legitimacy in that view because each of these parties is important and has to grow but for me it's outweighed by other factors primarily breaking the big business political duopoly.

A lot of the positive feedback I get on the Unity approach is from Democrats and Republicans. Many in both parties do not like the direction the leadership of the party is going. Republicans don't see their Party representing their values – instead of Main Steet and religious values they see Wall Street and values of gluttonous greed. Man Democrats can't believe their Party leadership is pro-war and anti-paper trail – and so deeply into the pockets of Big Business. My campaign will reach out to these Democrats and Republicans as well as it will be about the issues the the two parties won't address because of the special interests that finance them – the issues relevant to peoples lives.

Making this Unity campaign happen – with three parties that have personality and political differences will be a political feat that will send a message to the voters as well as Democrats, Republicans and the media that this is not business as usual. The country is going in too many wrong directions for us to be divided over party labels. We need to break the two party system so voters can have real choices. I'm very interested in peoples thoughts on this potential campaign. I can be contacted at .

Zeese: My Senate staff would be made up of the best organizer-advocates on peace, justice and democracy issues. We will be able to work from the inside of the Senate to build larger, more effective movements around those issues. We would use my office to create a counterbalance to the big business interests that are in Congress every day influencing legislation. Through my office, the people would have a foot in the door of their government and we would push the door open to make sure this really became a government of, by and for the people.

Further, this will be a closely divided Senate so an independent senator will be a powerful voice as both parties will want my vote on close questions. This will give me leverage to influence the content of legislation moreso than someone who is a rubber stamp, predictable vote for either of the duopoly parties.

Finally, my election would signal a paradigm shift away from the two big business-pro-war parties. Just as Solidarity defeated the one-party Communist system, Unity will have defeated the two-party corporate duopoly. My election would open the gates to a more interesting, representative and responsive democracy in the United States.

Zeese: A lot of voters feel unrepresented by the two parties. In fact in Maryland the “party” showing the greatest increase in Maryland registration is those who do not register with either of the two major parties. The Green Party has shown steady growth since 2000 – has run excellent candidates in local races – as have the Libertarians. Surveys of non-voters show the major reason people don't vote, other than inconvenience, is that the candidates do not speak to their concerns. I know I feel that way and that is why I do not support either major party. My goal is to speak for the people. The positions I advocate are supported by majorities of Americans – nearly six out of ten support bringing the troops home from Iraq, more than two-thirds support medical use of marijuana, 70 percent support paper trails for computer voting – yet the two major parties oppose all these positions as well as many others supported by most Marylanders.

Zeese: Mayor Schmoke never lost an election. He got re-elected by large margins after he came out against the drug war. My sense of his decision not to run for a fourth term was that he had done what he could in Baltimore and did not, at that time, have a vision for statewide office. He went on to become the Dean of Howard Law School where he still speaks out against the drug war. Schmoke did some things I disagreed with but he was right on the drug issue. And, he was making progress in Baltimore on that issue.

But you are right, the U.S. culture is a mix of puritanism and “pursuit of happiness.” Some like to think we can pass a law, make something illegal and the problem will go away. Too often, such an approach actually makes the problems worse. We saw it with alcohol prohibition – death, disease, corruption all increased. The same is true with drug prohibition. We spread crime, waste police resources, make our communities less safe, spread disease and death and increase racially unfair enforcement of criminal laws. We make the health problems of drugs worse by pushing their use into the back alleys, shooting galleries and crack houses – away from health care practitioners. A public health approach would be more effective than a criminal law approach. We have a better chance of getting control of drugs by bringing them within the law, rather than putting control of drugs in the hands of criminals. Treatment not incarceration is less expensive and more effective than mandatory minimum sentencing. Why would anyone want drugs controlled by criminals?

Ending the failed drug war is resisted because an industry has built up around it – law enforcement, coerced treatment, prisons, and drug enforcement bureaucrats. They will all fight to keep their piece of the drug war pie. And, they do so by spreading fear in the community – making exaggerated claims about drugs. Fear is a great tool for bad policies.

Arresting over 700,000 people for marijuana offenses is not a good use of resources. Denying the seriously ill access to medical marijuana is inhumane. Putting addicts in jail, when treatment is not available, is ineffective. I’m confident that the United States is smart enough to find more sensible approaches than the failed war on drugs that costs us $50 billion annually.

As a result of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision medical marijuana now must be resolved by the Congress. If I become a senator I would lead on this issue. We should not be letting people suffer when there are medicines that can help them. Up to 70 percent of Americans support medical marijuana. It is time for Congress to represent the will of the people.

Ending the failed drug war is not a pro-drug position – it is opposition to a policy that has failed to protect health and safety – especially of America's youth.

Zeese: At every stage of the criminal justice process there are racially unfair results. African American and Latino communities are targeted. Individuals from those communities are racially profiled. As a result most arrests are of blacks and Latinos. Prosecutorial discretion and judicial discretion favors people from the white community. And, discretion in sentencing works against African Americans.

In Maryland, African Americans are 28% of the population, but represent 68% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 90% of those incarcerated for a drug offense – the most racially unfair in the nation. African American men in Maryland are imprisoned at nearly 8 times the rate of white men – despite equal levels of drug use. Maryland's incarceration of blacks is the worst in the nation. And, incarceration is the least effective and most expensive way to deal with drug abuse. If people want more information on this I urge them to visit www.TreatNotJail.org and join the effort to end the overuse of incarceration for drug offenses in Maryland.

Nationally, according to federal surveys, “most current illicit drug users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72 percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4 million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in 1998.” And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations. African-Americans comprise almost 58% of those in state prisons for drug felonies; Hispanics account for 20.7%.

Sadly, too many black leaders were on the wrong side of this issue. Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) was the chair of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and supported mandatory minimum sentences. These laws devastated the black community. In recent years some African American leaders have recognized how the drug laws have done more harm than good for their community but their leadership is not as strong as it should be. If this were happening in the white community you would hear loud cries of injustice from European American elected officials.

Foxworthy: What were your experiences like with NORML?

Zeese: I got involved with NORML in 1978 while in law school at George Washington University.  I planned on being a criminal defense and constitutional rights lawyer at that point -- to fight for 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' -- and interned at NORML during law school. I worked on lawsuits concerning the constitutional right to privacy in the home, stopping the spraying of herbicides in Mexico and the U.S. as well as the medical use of marijuana. When I graduated in 1980 I became their Chief Counsel and then their National Director in 1983. I left in 1986 to form Drug Policy Foundation with Professor Arnold Trebach -- because the drug issue had moved on to non-marijuana issues like the spread of HIV/AIDS, crack-related crime and mandatory sentencing. Drug Policy Foundation became the largest reform organization ever, now known as Drug Policy Alliance, see http://www.drugpolicy.org.

Zeese: The United States is going in more wrong directions at the same time than ever in my lifetime. The Iraq War is draining our treasury, killing and injuring tens of thousands of soldiers and killing over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. It is a war that is making us less safe and less respected throughout the world. It is a symptom of a government that is too intertwined with the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about 50 years ago.

I started to get involved in other issues when Linda Schade ran for the Maryland House of Delegates in 2002 as a Green candidate. Then, Maryland made the mistake of buying paperless electronic voting machines – undermining the transparency and confidence in our democracy. I got active in the TrueVoteMD effort to require paper records for recounts. In 2004 I served as press secretary on Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo's presidential campaign. Our campaign focused on ending the Iraq War, repealing the Patriot Act, ending the Big Business control of government, protecting the environment, protecting worker rights and restoring justice. I continue to serve as president of Common Sense for Drug Policy (see www.csdp.org) but am also involved in other peace, justice and democracy issues.

We are only on this planet for a short time and my hope is to leave it a better place.

Zeese: I direct the 'Stop the War' campaign at Democracy Rising. We are working to bring our troops home and end the illegal war and occupation of Iraq. If you visit www.DemocracyRising.US you will see that we strive to ignite the anti-war movement by highlighting the work of activists, authors and political leaders working to end the war. We also interview people that have cutting edge information on Iraq. And, we provide the facts and citations that advocates need to be more effective in their work to end the war. We even have a weekly blog from occupied Baghdad.

Nearly 60 percent of Americans now agree the war was a mistake and we need to get out, and yet by 99 to 0 the Senate voted to continue to fund the illegal war. Don't you think we should have one senator who represents the majority view on the war? This May, both Maryland senators voted for $82 billion more for the war and the next day the military said they needed more money. Now they are talking about another $50 billion more for the war. I understand the need to support our troops, but couldn't they have demanded an exit strategy? Or, an accounting for the billions spent so far? The U.S. interim government in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority, could not account for $8.8 billion. Repeatedly the Department of Defense has tried to audit Halliburton and has been unable to do so because of poor record keeping. Corruption is being institutionalized in Iraq and our senators, by voting for tens of billions more without demanding an accounting, are doing Marylanders a disservice. The war has cost Maryland taxpayers $3.5 billion so far. That is the same cost as 171,000 college scholarships in Maryland – instead tuition has been rapidly rising in Maryland – or we could have hired 62,000 teachers.

Not only is there a bottomless pit of funding needs in Iraq, but this is occurring at a time when the needs of Americans are going unmet. Basic infrastructure is crumbling, jobs are going overseas, health care is not available to tens of millions. We could have certainly used those funds more effectively.

Then, there is the loss of human life – more than 1,700 American soldiers killed, ten times as many with serious injuries. Johns Hopkins researchers working with other researchers in Iraq estimated 100,000 civilian deaths as a result of our illegal invasion and occupation in a report published last October. Yet, the Senate unanimously supports more of the same – it is a disgrace.

I've called for a Resolution of Inquiry – the first step toward impeachment. This would allow the Congress to gather the facts and make an informed decision. There is a lot of evidence supporting the claim that President Bush misled the Congress and Americans in the build up to the war. See www.DemocracyRising.US for more on this. These issues need to be investigated – the truth needs to come out.

Regarding the Democrats, during the 2004 campaign, with Nader, I met with Senator Kerry, my impression was that he thought that he could win the presidency but rather than making him confident it made him cautious and too easily influenced by his handlers. He did not want to take any risks so the Democrats impeaching the president was too fraught with danger. Most elected Democrats seem fearful of pursuing impeachment because they are afraid of losing to the Republican controlled Congress. They don't realize that just by raising this issue they win – they undermine support for the war and the extreme militarist wing of the Republican Party. If we never took action because of fear of losing slavery would never have ended, we'd still be a segregated nation, women would not have the right to vote and on and on. We cannot make fear of defeat stop us from trying. With regard to impeachment it is never the wrong time to hold the president accountable. He is not above the law – he is subject to the law.

Dr. King was right then and his comments are still true today. The root of our international problems is the greed of the gluttonous wealthiest 5 percent – the parasitic elite – who not only hoard the wealth of the United States but are doing so worldwide. They do not mind sending jobs overseas, avoiding paying taxes through off-shore tax havens or undermining democratically enacted laws through international trade agreements that create corporate trade protections – giving up our sovereignty and benefiting international corporations at the expense of labor, consumers, the environment and democracy. Through U.S. economic and military power these major corporations control much of the resources of the world. The U.S. with only 5 percent of the world's population uses 25 percent of the world's resources. That is not a sustainable approach to living. Our overuse of resources is depleting the planet. In order to continue this lifestyle the U.S. has troops throughout the world – bases in more than 120 nations. The U.S. spends as much as the whole world combined on the military. To sustain this military might half the federal government's discretionary spending is on the military – hundreds of billions of dollars each year. It would make more sense to put those resources into breaking our addiction to oil. If that money were put in the pockets of Americans, or used to fund the needs of Americans we would be a lot better off. People would be investing in alternative energy, more efficient housing and transportation. If we had our priorities right the problems Dr. King observed would be more easily resolved.

Zeese: I was impressed with the anti-war movement before the Iraq War. The movement built quickly, put millions of people in the streets and was having a real impact. Everything those of us opposed to the war predicted has come true – quagmire, loss of American lives, killing of Iraq civilians, a king’s treasure in resources – yet the movement is weaker today. It is weaker because of mistakes by some in the peace movement in the presidential election. The understandable fear of President Bush – he is the worst president of my lifetime – led many in the peace movement to support Senator John Kerry despite his support for the war. As Sen. Kerry became more Bush-war-like, the peace movement remained silent. When he urged more troops, said he would fight the war better than Bush, criticized Bush for backing down on Fallujah and said he would have supported the war even without the WMD's what did many in the peace movement say – nothing. They went to work for him.

This was a critical error that the anti-war movement is only beginning to recover from. Momentum was lost, opposition to the war in Congress dissipated and activists lost faith in their leaders. Presidential elections are when the agenda for the country is shaped. The peace movement should have been criticizing Kerry when he expressed support for the war. There should have been major anti-war marches throughout the campaign. It is very difficult to come back from that error, but things are so bad in Iraq – the failure so obvious, the costs – human and financial escalating so quickly – that the peace movement is now making a comeback. It is time for people who oppose the war to get active again. Visit www.DemocracyRising.US and get involved. Or, visit United for Peace and Justice and find local groups you can work with. We have the power to end this war, we just need to exercise our power.

Zeese: At the foundation of the legitimacy of government is elections. If people do not trust the election results then the government losses legitimacy. The last two presidential elections highlighted many shortcomings in our democracy. The public awareness of these problems is an opportunity to fix them. Sadly, I don't see that type of leadership among our current senators nor do I see it in the two major parties.

In Maryland, I've been active in TrueVoteMD.org because we have a particular problem – the statewide use of paperless electronic voting. The administrator of our Board of Elections, Linda Lamone, should be fired for spending tens of millions of tax payer dollars on voting machines that cannot do a meaningful recount. We need a paper record confirmed by the voter that is available for independent recounts. These recounts need to be conducted in a transparent fashion, observed by voters, candidates and the media. People are losing faith in elections and electronic voting with no paper trail increases this loss of faith in democracy. Fixing this mistake is a first step to restoring faith in democracy.

The critical second step is giving voters more choices than the candidates from the two pro-Big Business, pro-war, pro-Patriot Act parties. Neither of these parties represents the issues of the people. The reason we have such low voter turnout – the lowest in the developed world – is because the candidates running do not represent the interests of the people. That will not change until voters start voting outside of the two party system for third party and independent candidates who are not dependent on the political financiers of the Republicrats or is it the Demipublicans!

Zeese: African Americans are always a target – in every election. They are a minority. They have no political power because they vote as a block for one party – so they are taken for granted. It is not a coincidence that the drug war escalated at the same time that the voting rights act was passed. The result – decades later – is that more African Americans have been disenfranchised than go to college!

Because Republicans know that 90% of blacks will vote Democrat all they need to do is focus their voter suppression on those African American districts – take people off the voter registration lists, put in less voting machines so there are longer lines, allow harassment at the voting places, put out false information on when voting is occurring.

The Democrats think they can take the African American vote for granted because they assume blacks have nowhere else to go. Perhaps the greatest slap in the face was in 2000 when there was clear evidence of suppression of the African American vote in Florida and despite many members of the Congressional Black Caucus complaining not one U.S. senator would challenge the vote. Sadly 2004 was not much better. At least Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) challenged the vote but then her Democratic colleagues said things like ‘we were not making this challenge to change the result.’ Why not? Suppressing minority votes should be a reason to challenge an election.

The Democratic Party in Maryland needs to be threatened. It has become a machine party that is in bed with many of the same big business interests as Republicans. It is Democrats in the Maryland legislature, specifically State Senator Paula Hollinger of Baltimore County and Delegate Sheila Hixson of Montgomery County, who blocked a bill requiring a paper record for electronic voting. They are the ones undermining democracy and they call themselves Democrats – they should change their name to anti-democrats. Leading Democrats support the illegal war and occupation of Iraq, put the wishes of Big Business interests ahead of the needs of the people and of small and medium sized entrepreneurs who are so important to growing our economy. We need a new political voice that is not part of the corpocracy – but is indebted to the people.

People need to start voting for what they want otherwise they will not get it.

The best example of a democratic revolt in the United States was the Populist Party at the end of the 1800s. They brought together farmers and workers to demand that this really become a country 'of, by and for the people.' During that movement there was a strong Black Populist movement. They created their own federations within the Populist Party. We need the same type of political movement today – a movement that really makes this a government of the people – not a government of Big Business interests.

There is a crisis of democracy today because we have two big business parties who are unable, because of their being wed to their financial support to be part of the solution. People are going to have to turn to the alternative parties in Maryland to fix this problem. In order to combat the political duopoly I am urging the alternative parties to partner together and to rally the people of Maryland around a campaign to re-establish and reform our democracy.

In the last three presidential elections I voted Populist, Green and Libertarian. I was one of the founders of the Populist Party of Maryland, but I hold a lot in common with the Libertarian and Green Parties as well. I am registered Green and am a big supporter of the idea of “a Partnership for Democracy” between the alternative parties as there is a lot of reason for them to come together in a common effort to restore democracy in Maryland and in the Nation. Political ideas traditionally considered right, middle or left have a lot in common, starting with our common interests to re-establish democracy and stop U.S. military adventurism. We should not let our areas of difference divide us from confronting these urgent needs. Divide and conquer is a strategy well-used by the dominant powers to prevent the less powerful from joining together to move forward. If the people unify around our common goals we can achieve great things together.