Hubbry Logo
No LabelsNo LabelsMain
Open search
No Labels
Community hub
No Labels
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
No Labels
No Labels
No Labels
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Part of a series on
Centrism in
the United States
Ideologies
Politicians
Jurists
Parties
Organizations
Congressional caucuses
Movement factions
Other
Related topics

No Labels is an American political organization whose stated mission is to support centrism and bipartisanship through what it calls the "commonsense majority".[2] No Labels was founded in 2010 as a 501(c)(4) by current president and CEO Nancy Jacobson.[3][4] Senator Joe Lieberman served as its national co-chair from 2014 to 2024.[5][6]

On April 4, 2024, the organization ended its effort to secure ballot access for a Unity ticket for the 2024 United States presidential election. Following Lieberman's death on March 27, 2024, the organization stated that it would remain true to its commitment to not offer its ballot line to a candidate who did not have a likely path to victory to avoid them acting as a "spoiler" for either party.[7][8]

History

[edit]

Founding

[edit]

No Labels was founded on December 13, 2010, with the slogan "Not Left. Not Right. Forward". Organizers said the aim was to organize American voters against partisanship in politics and encourage a "common ground" approach to problem solving. The group's early efforts were viewed by some skeptics as an attempt to support a potential third party presidential campaign for Michael Bloomberg in 2012, which he and No Labels denied. No Labels had relatively few Republicans at its first conference in 2010,[9] and criticism of the movement at the time came largely from the right.[10][relevant? – discuss]

Congress

[edit]

In January 2013, No Labels promoted an informal "Problem Solvers" caucus in Congress for members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The group initially began as 24 Democratic and Republican members of Congress who pledged to meet regularly.[11] Members would identify their affiliation by wearing lapel pins, particularly during events such as the 2013 and 2015 State of the Union addresses.[12][13]

In 2017, the group helped to formally start the Problem Solvers Caucus in the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group of approximately 60 congressional members.

Before the 2019–2020 House term, No Labels released a plan to enhance bipartisan cooperation in Congress called The Speaker Project. Several planks from this proposal were later included in an agreement that the Problem Solvers Caucus reached with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.[14] Some praised the agreement as practical and necessary, while others claimed it might give House Republicans[15] and/or corporate interests[16] more power for that term.[17]

In 2021, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) convened governors, senators and House members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus for a summit on finding bipartisan consensus in President Biden’s proposed infrastructure plan. Following the summit, the group agreed that any infrastructure plan should focus first on “conventional infrastructure” before addressing a more expansive plan.[18] The resulting "Building Bridges" blueprint for a bipartisan infrastructure deal was the first deal to be endorsed by Republicans and Democrats during that budget cycle.[19][relevant? – discuss]

In 2023 and 2024, two smaller left-wing outlets have criticized the organization for its pro-Israel stances including around cracking down on campus protests.[20][21]

2024 presidential ticket

[edit]
No Labels ballot access before the abandonment of the campaign
  Certified for ballot (18 states, 147 electors)
  Petition awaiting certification (8 states, 44 electors)
  Petition rejected (1 state, 17 electors)
  Automatic write-in (5 states, 46 electors)
  Not on ballot

No Labels intended to offer its ballot line to a "unity ticket" in the 2024 presidential election, as an "insurance policy" in the event that "both major parties nominate presidential candidates that the vast majority of Americans don’t want". In November 2023, No Labels' chief strategist, Ryan Clancy, stated that "Based on the conditions as they are, we expect to be putting up a ticket early next year".[22] By February 2024, The New York Times described the efforts as having "foundered for months now" with the group's most high-profile potential candidates ruling out running on a No Labels ticket.[23]

Senator Joe Manchin was among the most high-profile candidates sought by No Labels, but in mid-February he ruled out a 2024 presidential run, citing timing and to avoid being a spoiler.[24][23] Congressman Dean Phillips said he would consider running on the No Labels ticket if polling suggested that President Joe Biden would end up losing to Donald Trump,[25] but reversed his statement a day later.[26][27] Former Republican governors Larry Hogan,[28] Jon Huntsman[29] and Nikki Haley,[30] have all denied interest in a presidential run on the No Labels ticket. Manchin later said in September 2025 that he ruled out a run because No Labels wanted a Republican on their presidential ticket.[31]

No Labels and its supporters cited polling showing voters' disapproval of the presumptive 2024 Democratic and Republican presidential nominees. In August 2022, No Labels released a poll of voters in eight battleground states, finding 63% of voters open to a "moderate independent" presidential candidate;[32] however, Intelligencer columnist Ed Kilgore argues that once a specific candidate is chosen, polling numbers will drop dramatically.[33] A poll from Monmouth University on July 20, 2023, concluded that, if No Labels' chosen candidates were more popular with conservatives, it was not clear which major party would benefit more: "The presence of a third party in the race would siphon votes from both major party nominees, but it is not apparent it would play the role of a spoiler."[34] FiveThirtyEight's review of polling on July 13, 2023, predicted at that time that a bi-partisan ticket would likely benefit Trump.[35]

The effort was criticized by some Democrats, centrists, and Republicans, some people feared it could give former president Trump a second term.[36][37][38][39][40][41] One report claimed that certain center-left members of No Labels' Problem Solvers Caucus were "in open revolt";[42][43] co-founder William Galston resigned in protest.[44][45] A bipartisan group of former lawmakers launched a super PAC called Citizens to Save Our Republic to focus on stopping No Labels' presidential ticket.[46][47] Nonprofits Third Way and MoveOn also organized a campaign to get Democrats to disavow No Labels.[48] Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie has been critical of the organization, stating that No Labels does not "know who they’re going to hurt".[49][50] Despite his expressed misgivings, in March 2024, Christie briefly considered making a No Labels run[51] before ruling out the idea later that same month.[52] Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the effort "perilous to our democracy" citing how a moderately successful 2024 presidential run would throw the election to state congressional delegations which Republicans control.[53] President Biden has stated that a No Labels candidacy would help his opponent. Biden's top aides have blessed efforts of allies to push financial and political support away from No Labels and other potential third party bids. Democrats have worked to spread negative information about potential third party candidates while lawyers have researched options to limit ballot access.[25][54] Clancy stated in November 2023 that "we don’t think Trump should ever again be president", and promised that No Labels would not act as a spoiler that would benefit Trump.[22]

Mike Rawlings confirmed in March 2024 that the organization still intended to field a presidential candidate.[55] Chairman Joe Lieberman announced the candidate selection process, discussing the creation of the "Country Over Party Committee", a group of 12 individuals which would vet and select a presidential and vice presidential candidate. At that point, the decision would be voted on by delegates of the organization.[56] By then, No Labels had ballot access in 16 states:[23] Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii,[57] Kansas,[58] Maine,[57] Maryland,[59] Mississippi, Montana,[60] Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Utah.[57] No Labels additionally achieved ballot access in Delaware,[61] Nebraska,[62] North Dakota,[63] Wisconsin,[64] Rhode Island, Tennessee, Wyoming,[65] Alabama, and Louisiana, bringing the total number of states with No Labels ballot access to 25 states.

On April 4, 2024, the organization ended its effort to run a presidential ticket for the 2024 election.[66] The New York Times said that Lieberman's death on March 27 meant the organization had "little political firepower to recruit potential candidates".[8] Joe Cunningham, the national director for No Labels, said the group was "looking for a hero and a hero never emerged."[67] In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times later that month, No Labels lawyer Dan K. Webb stated that Christie had agreed in March to be a presidential candidate for the organization, but a Democratic vice-presidential nominee could not be found.[68]

[edit]
Arizona
[edit]

The Democratic Party of Arizona sued unsuccessfully in 2023 to prevent No Labels from recognition as a political party, with the ability to place candidates on the state ballot.[69] As of the fall of 2023, over 15,000 Arizona residents had chosen to register their party affiliation as No Labels, more than the margin of victory in the 2020 presidential election in Arizona.[70] By April 2025, over 36,000 Arizonans had registered as No Labels voters, making it the state's third largest party.[71]

After No Labels attained recognition, perennial candidate Richard Grayson opted to run under the No Labels banner.[70] No Labels then sued the Arizona Secretary of State, Democrat Adrian Fontes, to prevent candidates it did not approve from running under the No Labels banner on its ballot line.[72] U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi ruled in No Labels' favor.[73] However, Grayson qualified to run as a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Alaska's at-large congressional district with the "No Labels" ballot label.[74]

In the 2025 special election in Arizona's 7th Congressional District, the Secretary of State permitted Grayson to run as a write-in candidate in the July 15 No Labels Party primary.[75] Just four days before that primary, on July 11, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's 2024 opinion, saying that No Labels had no right to tell the Secretary of State to block anyone from filing for partisan office in the No Labels primary.[76] Grayson won the primary with one write-in vote and advanced to the special general election.[77]

Also in July 2025, the new chair of the Arizona No Labels Party, former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, announced that after the Ninth Circuit ruling, the state party, with nearly 40,000 members, would open itself up to independent candidates up and down the ballot.[78] “We believe that an open primary and more people participating is to our advantage, and we’re going to look for candidates and for people who believe that, who believe civility matters, decency matters, and focusing on the big issues matter,” Johnson said.[79]

The national No Labels organization issued a statement that said, "No Labels has no ongoing involvement with the Arizona state party. A group of local Arizonans is leading this effort without any affiliation with No Labels. They will change the state party’s name and be responsible for all aspects of the state party’s operations moving forward."[80]

Durst lawsuit
[edit]

In January 2024, real estate heirs Douglas Durst and his cousin, Jonathan, sued No Labels alleging a "bait and switch" scheme had been used to finance their third-party presidential campaign. The Durst family says it has donated to No Labels since 2016, when the group's messaging focused on bipartisan policy legislation, but contend that No Labels' presidential ambitions are a breach of their donor's trust. According to No Labels, the Dursts have not donated in several years.[81][needs update]

Maine
[edit]

In May 2023, the Secretary of State of Maine, Democrat Shenna Bellows, sent No Labels a cease and desist letter after accusing the organization of misleading voters into registering for the party. She claimed that No Labels misrepresented voter registrations as petitions, and informed each registrant how to change their party affiliation. No Labels argued that Bellows' actions could amount to voter suppression and responded by stating that their organizers were instructed to ask voters to join their party, and noted that the form signed by voters is titled "Maine Voter Registration Application". While 798 people who received letters from Bellows unenrolled from No Labels, the group still had enough registered voters to qualify for the Maine ballot.[82][83] In January 2024, the party was confirmed as a qualified political party giving them ballot access.[84] No Labels has rejected a state-run primary in Maine.[85]

Intimidation complaint
[edit]

In January 2024, No Labels filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice alleging an "illegal conspiracy to use intimidation, harassment and fear against representatives of No Labels, its donors and as potential candidates."[86] The complaint claimed members of Third Way and The Lincoln Project actively threatened No Labels and prospective candidates to cease their presidential ambitions. Both Third Way and the Lincoln Project have denied the allegations.[87][needs update]

Funding

[edit]

No Labels does not disclose its donors' identities, citing the potential for lobbying and pressure campaigns for major donors to stop backing the organization. IRS section 501(c) organizations are not legally required to disclose their donors.[88] This lack of transparency has been a major source of criticism for the organization[89] alongside critiques that the group prioritizes the wellbeing of wealthy donors instead of policies with broad appeal that could reduce partisanship.[90][91][92][16] The Intercept and Jacobin report examples of the group working to block tax increases on the wealthiest Americans and corporations.[93][94] A 2023 Wall Street Journal article described the known donors as being from industries like energy and finance that largely lean Republican.[95]

Early donors to No Labels include board member Andrew Tisch, co-chairman of Loews Corporation; Ron Shaich, founder of Panera Bread; Dave Morin, a former Facebook executive, and supporters of Michael Bloomberg.[96] A 2018 Chicago Sun-Times investigation found five super PACs that were affiliated with No Labels,[97][98][99] sparking an OpenSecrets investigation identifying two more.[100] All seven super PACs were closed in 2020.[101][102][103][104][105][106][107] The Daily Beast reported that in 2018 No Labels' super PACs received more than $11 million from 53 donors, most of whom worked in finance.[90] The New Republic reported in 2023 that No Labels received major funding from Harlan Crow, a leading donor to Republican and conservative causes.[108] No Labels has been described as a dark money organization.[109][110][91][111]

Leadership

[edit]

Nancy Jacobson has been the board president since the founding of the organization and as of 2022, CEO.[112] In December 2020, No Labels announced Maryland governor Larry Hogan as a national co-chair (prominent spokesperson[113]) to serve alongside the No Labels founding co-chair Joe Lieberman.[114] In January 2023, former NAACP executive director Benjamin Chavis joined Hogan as national co-chair.[115] In June 2023, former North Carolina governor Pat McCrory joined as a national co-chair.[116] Hogan stepped down as co-chair in December 2023.[117]

Nancy Jacobson and Jerald S. Howe Jr. (board treasurer) have been on the board since the founding of the group in 2010. Andrew Tisch joined in 2012. Andrew M. Bursky joined in 2015. Dennis C. Blair and Charles R. Black Jr. joined in 2019.[118] Tish Bazil was added to the organization's website as a board member in 2023.[119] Previous board members include: Ted Buerger (2010), Joshua Bekenstein (2010), Mark Nunnelly (2010), Mark McKinnon (2010–2012), Nate Garvis (2010–2013), Holly Page (2010–2013), Lisa Borders (2014–2017),[118] Kenneth A. Gross (2012–2023) and Margie Fox (2009–2023).[120]

In May 2025, No Labels announced three new Congressional National Leaders to continue to bring Congressmembers together to build consensus solutions. Senator Markwayne Mullin, Representatives Jared Golden and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez will help No Labels by championing a less divisive way forward.[121]

Based on 14 interviews with former employees in December 2022, Politico described a "cutthroat culture" within No Labels.[122] In response to the criticism, several senior officials for the group described to Politico the complaints as coming from "aggrieved ex-workers" who could not "adapt" to a demanding office culture.[122] Politico reported that in addition to requiring non-disclosure agreements, Nancy Jacobson has been accused by former employees of asking staff members to obscure where they work on LinkedIn, allegedly, in order to make it more difficult for journalists to interview No Labels employees.[122]

Candidates

[edit]

While several candidates were rumored to be in consideration for No Labels Unity ticket, including Joe Manchin and Chris Christie, No Labels did not authorize any candidates to utilize its ballot for any office.[66][68] Despite this, several local candidates tried to run on the No Labels ballot.

Damon Townsend ran as a No Labels Party candidate for Secretary of State of Washington State in the August 6, 2024 primary.[123] He finished fourth with 5.02% of the vote.[124]

Richard Grayson ran as a No Labels Party candidate for U.S. Representative from Alaska in the August 20, 2024 primary and finished tenth with 0.13% of the vote.[125]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

No Labels

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
No Labels is an American centrist political organization founded on December 13, 2010, by , a former Democratic Party fundraiser, with the aim of fostering bipartisan cooperation to address challenges and reduce partisan gridlock. The group operates as a non-partisan advocacy entity, emphasizing "commonsense" solutions through initiatives such as the No Labels in , which has sought to advance cross-party legislation on issues like and . In 2024, No Labels pursued a high-profile effort to field a bipartisan "unity ticket" for the presidential election, securing in several states while recruiting potential candidates including former Senator and Senator , but ultimately abandoned the bid in April after failing to attract a credible nominee amid recruitment challenges and external opposition. The initiative drew significant controversy, with Democratic leaders and aligned groups warning it could act as a spoiler benefiting former President , leading to complaints, donor disclosure disputes, and subsequent lawsuits by No Labels against operatives accused of . Despite these setbacks, No Labels continues to focus on and legislative influence, positioning itself as an alternative to entrenched two-party dynamics.

Origins and Development

Founding Principles and Early Formation

No Labels was established on December 13, 2010, at Columbia University in New York City by a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and independents seeking to address escalating partisan dysfunction in Washington, D.C.. The organization was founded by Nancy Jacobson, a longtime Democratic fundraiser and political operative, who envisioned a movement transcending traditional party labels to prioritize practical governance over ideological battles.. Initial supporters included figures from across the political spectrum frustrated by events such as the post-2008 economic recovery gridlock and rising congressional polarization, which empirical analyses linked to reduced legislative output since the 1990s, including fewer bills passed and increased reliance on short-term fiscal measures.. The group's foundational ethos centered on a " of ," rejecting rigid partisanship in favor of collaborative approaches to national challenges, as articulated in early statements emphasizing that Americans desired leaders focused on results rather than scoring political points.. This principle drew from observations of causal factors in stagnation, such as zero-sum partisan tactics that exacerbated issues like impasses, with showing Congress's productivity—measured by laws enacted—had declined markedly from bipartisan highs in prior decades.. No Labels positioned itself as providing political cover for elected officials willing to compromise, aiming to foster a "commonsense majority" unbound by party orthodoxy.. In its formative months of 2011, No Labels began recruiting centrist politicians and launching initial public awareness efforts, including the "Make Work" campaign, which highlighted structural reforms to counteract polarization's effects on governance without endorsing specific ideological platforms.. These steps involved gathering endorsements from over a dozen members of early on, focusing on building a network dedicated to evidence-based solutions amid crises like the impending 2011 debt ceiling standoff, which exemplified the the group sought to mitigate..

Expansion into Congressional Engagement

In 2011, No Labels expanded its activities to engage directly with Congress, focusing on the federal debt ceiling crisis by publicly urging lawmakers to pursue bipartisan compromise over ideological standoffs. On July 18, 2011, the organization coordinated a protest in Washington, D.C., involving about 45 participants who advocated for any viable debt reduction agreement to avert default. This initiative sought to counteract escalating partisanship, as evidenced by high party unity scores in the 112th Congress, where House party unity averaged over 90% for both Democrats and Republicans on key votes. Building on these early efforts, No Labels facilitated informal bipartisan discussions among members starting around 2013–2014, providing a forum for cross-party networking amid documented declines in cooperative roll-call voting patterns during the . These meetings evolved into structured advocacy, culminating in the launch of the in January 2017 as a direct outgrowth of No Labels' initiatives, beginning with members equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. The caucus emphasized fostering environments where lawmakers could support cross-aisle positions without electoral reprisal, addressing causal factors like agenda control by party leaders that had reduced bipartisan opportunities in prior sessions. By the late , the had expanded beyond its initial roster, enabling sustained member interactions that challenged the prevailing trend of party-line dominance, where unified party voting on floor amendments rose steadily from the early onward. This growth reflected No Labels' strategy of cultivating trust-based networks to promote independent thinking, distinct from rigid partisan constraints observed in congressional records.

Ideology and Policy Framework

Core Mission of Bipartisanship

No Labels' ideological foundation rests on promoting through collaboration, emphasizing "commonsense solutions" that favor of effectiveness and pragmatic over rigid partisan ideologies or narratives. The organization posits that hyperpartisanship systematically obstructs progress by incentivizing conflict rather than resolution, advocating instead for a rejection of extreme positions on both sides—such as unchecked regulatory expansion without proven net benefits or withdrawal from proven international frameworks—that prioritize doctrinal adherence over verifiable results. This approach derives from a causal understanding that effective policymaking emerges from cross-aisle negotiation grounded in shared national interests, rather than zero-sum . Central to this mission is a challenge to the entrenched two-party duopoly, which No Labels argues perpetuates polarization by structurally marginalizing independent voices and moderate coalitions; it counters the prevailing view of inevitable partisan hegemony by highlighting historical instances where third-party pressures compelled major parties toward compromise. Drawing on such precedents, the group endorses electoral innovations like top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting, as seen in Alaska's implementation, which empirically fostered reduced and greater legislator independence by broadening candidate pools and diminishing spoiler dynamics. These reforms are framed not as partisan tools but as mechanisms to realign incentives toward outcome-oriented cooperation, enabling the "vast majority" of voters disillusioned with extremes to influence governance more directly. No Labels has sought to embody post-partisan modeling by cultivating networks of legislators committed to independent judgment, as evidenced by its support for bipartisan case studies demonstrating successful cross-party legislating on foundational challenges. Yet this centrist ethos draws fire from ideological flanks: progressive critics, often from Democratic-aligned outlets, decry it as naive for presuming cooperation amid deep divisions or as a veiled spoiler aiding conservative victories, while some conservative voices label it elite-orchestrated, diluting robust opposition to left-leaning policies through undue moderation. Such assessments, while attributing to donor networks, overlook the organization's focus on elevating voter demand for results over insider machinations.

Key Policy Priorities and Positions

No Labels emphasizes fiscal responsibility as a core priority, targeting a balanced federal budget by 2030 through structural reforms including biennial budgeting cycles, the "No Budget, No Pay" mechanism to enforce timely resolutions, sales of underutilized federal assets, bulk purchasing for efficiencies, and establishment of a dedicated capital budget to distinguish investment from operational spending. These measures draw inspiration from bipartisan deficit reduction frameworks like the Simpson-Bowles plan, which proposed a mix of spending restraints, entitlement adjustments, and enhancements to stabilize at 60% of GDP, though No Labels adapts them to prioritize enforceable congressional discipline without specifying exact targets beyond neutrality in reforms. In , the organization advocates for growth-oriented tax simplification, proposing uniform taxation rates across wages, capital gains, and dividends; a reduction in the rate to 25%; a shift to a territorial system; and closure of the estimated $400 billion annual tax gap, structured to avoid net increases for lower- and middle-income households while enabling deficit reduction over time. Complementary goals include generating 25 million new jobs over a decade via innovation-friendly and investments, balanced against maintaining safety nets through solvency reforms for Social Security and Medicare—such as raising the cap to $240,000, a 1% rate increase, moderated benefits for the top 20% of earners, and Medicare drug price negotiations—which aim to extend program viability for 75 years without broad cuts. On , No Labels prioritizes as a foundational element of resilience, seeking to achieve by 2024 through reduced transportation oil dependence, elevated standards, transitions to sustainable sources, and grid modernization, funded in part by a reallocated federal gas tax increase divided equally among deficit reduction, highway maintenance, and offsets. This approach underscores bipartisan alliances for strategic deterrence, viewing domestic energy abundance as empirically linked to lower geopolitical vulnerabilities, as evidenced by U.S. GDP stability during periods of high domestic production (e.g., post-2010 boom correlating with 2-3% annual growth amid global oil shocks). Broader stances favor pragmatic international coalitions over ideological or overextension, though specific defense spending details remain tied to overall fiscal constraints. Critics from both ideological flanks argue these centrist positions risk diluting principled reforms—conservatives contend entitlement tweaks insufficiently address structural bloat, while progressives view simplifications as regressive despite neutrality claims—but indicates majority voter preference for moderation, with 2023 surveys showing 60-70% of independents favoring balanced budgets and bipartisan security pacts over polarized alternatives. Empirical correlations support efficacy in mixed-economy contexts, where nations pursuing centrist fiscal mixes (e.g., Sweden's reforms yielding 2.5% average GDP growth post-consolidation) outperform highly polarized peers in long-term stability.

Organizational Operations

Leadership and Governance

founded No Labels in December 2010 as a centrist advocacy organization, serving as its president and chief executive officer since inception. Former U.S. Senator (I-CT) co-founded the group and held the position of founding chairman until his death on March 27, 2024. The governing board includes former Governor (D), who contributes to strategic oversight alongside in memoriam recognition of Lieberman's foundational role. Former Governor (R) has served in senior leadership capacities, including as a co-chair, participating in high-level decisions such as public advocacy letters in January 2024. Advisory input draws from figures like , former governor and U.S. ambassador, who has engaged in key organizational events to promote centrist strategies. Post-2020 operational shifts elevated Ryan Clancy to chief strategist, where he directs policy development, communications, and internal coordination, as evidenced in Federal Election Commission-related activities and public statements. Internal governance relies on a board and advisory mechanisms that prioritize bipartisan consensus in decision-making, mirroring the group's mission to foster cross-aisle agreement on priorities without formal voting majorities. This structure avoids partisan dominance, requiring alignment among diverse members to advance initiatives, though specifics on voting thresholds remain undisclosed in public filings.

Affiliated Entities and Networks

The (PSC), established in 2017 with foundational support from No Labels, functions as a key affiliated network within the U.S. . Comprising roughly 50 members equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, the caucus enforces strict bipartisan criteria for participation and endorsements, requiring prospective bills to secure at least 75% overall approval, including majority backing from each party. This structure aims to prioritize legislative proposals capable of transcending partisan divides. PSC operations center on weekly bipartisan meetings for debating challenges and brainstorming compromises, supplemented by coordinated to elevate endorsed measures. No Labels provides ongoing strategic and organizational backing to the caucus, aligning it with the parent group's emphasis on institutional reform and cross-party cooperation in . Critics, including analyses from progressive outlets, have described the PSC as structurally limited in overriding party leadership pressures, potentially rendering its efforts more symbolic than transformative despite internal metrics of heightened member collaboration. Complementing these efforts, the No Labels Academy serves as an affiliated educational network, delivering curated resources to members on fiscal, economic, and geopolitical topics. Launched to counter perceived media distortions, it features monthly expert-led webinars, discussion guides, readings, and quizzes—such as modules on congressional budgeting and global trade dynamics—intended to foster informed among participants. Accessible via tiered memberships starting at $25 annually, the academy emphasizes empirical policy analysis over ideological framing. No Labels extends its networks through decentralized coordination, including local groups and state-focused outreach to cultivate bipartisan problem-solving at subnational levels, though formal chapter structures remain informal and event-driven rather than rigidly organized.

Financial Backing

Funding Sources and Major Donors

No Labels, structured as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, derives its funding predominantly from private individual contributions, which permits to remain undisclosed to maintain donor . This model has enabled the group to amass significant resources, with reports indicating approximately $60 million raised by April 2024, reflecting a marked surge from prior years amid intensified initiatives. In 2022 alone, it collected $21 million, underscoring a pattern of escalating inflows tied to expanded organizational ambitions. Revealed donors exhibit a mix of political backgrounds, including Republican-leaning figures such as Michael Smith, a major energy sector investor who has donated over $5.5 million to GOP-aligned Senate Leadership Fund, alongside his wife Iris Smith, whose contributions have spanned both parties including Biden's 2020 victory fund and several Republican senators. Other substantial backers include private-equity investor Tom McInerney, with over $300,000 directed to Republican committees and leaders, and , a magnate known for conservative , who contributed $5,000 to an affiliated super PAC. Democratic-leaning supporters among disclosed donors feature investor Peter Resnick, a backer of Obama and Biden campaigns, and Thomas "Mack" McLarty III, former . Contributions to affiliated political action committees further highlight this breadth, with hedge fund manager providing $1 million, media executive $1.2 million, and investor $900,000. Approximately 80% of 2022 funds stemmed from roughly 68 donors each giving $100,000 or more, a concentration comparable to other nonpartisan outfits reliant on high-value, opaque inflows that insulate operations from partisan donor pressures.

Transparency and Accountability Concerns

No Labels, structured as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization under IRS regulations, is not required to publicly disclose its donors, allowing contributions to remain anonymous while permitting up to 49% of activities to involve political advocacy. This exemption from donor reporting, unlike the requirements for political action committees or candidate campaigns under Federal Election Commission rules, has prompted structural critiques regarding accountability in influencing elections. In June 2023, as No Labels advanced its third-party presidential strategy, the organization confirmed it would not reveal funding sources, emphasizing compliance with legal thresholds despite operational similarities to political entities. Such opacity aligns with standard 501(c)(4) practices but contrasts with calls for enhanced voluntary reporting among advocacy groups seeking and candidate recruitment. By January 2024, a of nonpartisan campaign finance watchdogs, including the League of Women Voters, formally requested donor disclosure to mitigate perceptions of untraceable influence on electoral processes. No Labels annually submits IRS detailing expenditures and aggregate finances, yet the absence of real-time or itemized donor data—common in peer organizations like other centrist nonprofits—has fueled debates over balancing regulatory compliance with public oversight. Empirical reviews of similar entities indicate low rates of IRS violations for 501(c)(4)s overall, with enforcement focusing on substantiation rather than proactive transparency.

Legislative and Advocacy Achievements

Bipartisan Initiatives in

In 2013, No Labels launched an initiative aimed at fostering effective bipartisan cooperation among members of , marking an early effort to bridge partisan divides on legislative priorities. By 2017, the organization facilitated the creation of the in the , a group evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans designed to negotiate cross-aisle compromises on fiscal and other issues. Pre-2020 activities emphasized fiscal responsibility, including advocacy for structured processes to avert government shutdowns and ceiling crises, though specific bill sponsorships remained limited to caucus-led negotiations. In December 2020, the , with No Labels' backing, proposed a bipartisan emergency pandemic relief package, including the Emergency Relief Act of 2020, which featured $908 billion in targeted aid and passed the on December 21 by a vote of 346-72 after caucus-mediated talks. No Labels' national co-chair publicly credited the caucus and allied senators for advancing the final , signed into law on December 27, 2020, providing $900 billion in relief. Post-2020 efforts shifted toward and ; in 2021, No Labels endorsed the bipartisan framework leading to the , signed on November 15, which allocated $550 billion in new spending and passed the 69-30 on August 10 after negotiations involving centrist senators. The organization convened discussions on permitting reforms to expedite projects and domestic supply chains, supporting congressional pushes for streamlined approvals in subsequent sessions.

Measurable Policy Impacts

The (PSC), founded with No Labels' support in 2017, endorsed five bills that were signed into law during its first year (115th Congress, 2017-2018), alongside eight that passed the House and three that advanced in committee. These included targeted measures on issues like and , demonstrating initial legislative traction through bipartisan negotiation. Subsequent sessions saw PSC-endorsed bills such as the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (H.R. 3746), which suspended the until January 2025 and imposed spending caps to avert default, and the of 2022, the first major federal legislation in nearly three decades, incorporating enhanced background checks and funding for . Empirical analysis via the Lugar Center's Bipartisan Index, which quantifies cross-aisle co-sponsorship and collaboration, shows PSC members outperforming House averages; in 2020, 18 of its members ranked in the top 50 most bipartisan legislators out of 435, with metrics reflecting higher rates of attracting opposite-party co-sponsors compared to non-members. This elevated activity contributed to efforts averting government shutdowns, including a 2023 endorsement of a bipartisan appropriations framework that facilitated continued funding operations. Despite these outputs, No Labels' policy influence has faced scrutiny for limited scale amid entrenched partisanship; aggregate bipartisan bill passage in remained below 10% of total enactments from 2017-2023 per data, suggesting PSC efforts yielded niche successes but insufficiently countered major party-driven agendas on entitlements, taxes, or . Critics, including analyses from progressive outlets, argue such impacts are marginal, often amplifying incremental reforms without shifting overarching fiscal or regulatory trajectories dominated by leadership priorities.

2024 Presidential Efforts

Strategy and Candidate Recruitment

In March 2023, No Labels outlined its strategy to field a bipartisan "unity ticket" for the 2024 presidential election, positioning the effort as an "" against a rematch between former President and incumbent President , whom the group viewed as polarizing extremes unlikely to unify the electorate. The plan emphasized recruiting one candidate from each or independents with cross-aisle appeal to exploit widespread voter frustration, evidenced by Gallup polling showing 63% of U.S. adults in October 2023 agreeing that the Democratic and Republican parties do a poor job representing the public and that a third is needed. Independents, comprising 49% of per Gallup's 2023 data, were seen as a key constituency, with over 40% expressing openness to alternatives in contemporaneous surveys of dissatisfaction with binary choices. Candidate recruitment criteria prioritized electability—measured by national name recognition, fundraising potential, and polling viability—and centrism, defined as a track record of bipartisan problem-solving over ideological purity. The organization targeted figures like West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who attended No Labels events and was courted for his moderate Democratic credentials and appeal in swing states, as well as Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, valued for her independent streak and resistance to party-line votes on spending and regulations. Approaches extended to other high-profile individuals with centrist profiles, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for his outsider critique of establishment politics and Nikki Haley for her Republican foreign policy experience balanced against domestic moderation, aiming to assemble a ticket capable of hitting 15% thresholds in national polls to qualify for debates and demonstrate competitiveness. This vetting process, conducted through private discussions up to mid-2023, sought pairs able to carry multiple states without spoiling one major party's chances, based on internal modeling of electoral maps favoring unity appeals in battlegrounds. ![No Labels 2024 ballot access][float-right] No Labels conducted state-by-state campaigns from 2023 to early 2024, primarily through collecting petitions and paying filing fees to qualify a potential independent presidential ticket. By October 2023, the organization had secured access in 12 states, including as the latest addition. These efforts involved substantial expenditures, with for independents across multiple states typically requiring millions in petition drives and legal compliance. In key battleground states, No Labels faced opposition and verification hurdles. On March 29, 2024, the group submitted nearly 27,000 signatures in to meet the threshold for non-recognized parties, forgoing the easier route available to established presidential entities. Democratic-aligned groups mounted challenges against third-party signature validity in states like and , contributing to delays and scrutiny. Amid these campaigns, No Labels filed a with the Department of Justice on January 18, 2024, alleging illegal intimidation and harassment by opponents interfering with petition gatherers seeking . The organization, operating as a 501(c)(4) social welfare group, encountered Federal Election Commission coordination concerns, as critics questioned its ability to support a presidential without reclassifying as a . By March 2024, ongoing lawsuits and state-specific disputes persisted, with access achieved in some jurisdictions but unresolved in others due to verification processes and legal opposition.

Decision to Suspend the Bid

On April 4, 2024, No Labels announced it would suspend its efforts to field a bipartisan presidential ticket for the 2024 election, citing the failure to recruit an exceptional candidate with a viable path to victory. The organization's co-founder and CEO, , stated, "No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down," after approaching over 30 high-profile figures, including Senators and , former Governor , and former Governor , all of whom declined. Despite securing in 21 states and raising approximately $60 million, primarily from undisclosed donors, No Labels concluded that proceeding without a competitive nominee risked futility. The decision followed months of recruitment challenges amid warnings of vote-splitting dangers, with internal assessments highlighting the absence of a candidate capable of avoiding a spoiler effect in a likely Biden-Trump rematch. No Labels had previously cited its own polling from firms like HarrisX to claim broad voter openness to a centrist alternative, estimating over 70% dissatisfaction with the major-party nominees in some surveys. However, independent analyses, such as those from Third Way, indicated that a No Labels ticket would disproportionately draw votes from Biden, potentially handing swing states to Trump without a realistic win path for the third-party entrant. Reactions underscored partisan divides: Democratic strategists and figures like former House Speaker expressed relief, viewing the suspension as averting an inadvertent boost to Trump via electoral spoilage, consistent with historical third-party outcomes like Ross Perot's 1992 impact. No Labels defenders, including its leadership, framed the move as pragmatic realism, prioritizing electoral responsibility over a quixotic bid that lacked frontrunners and faced donor reticence toward unproven viability. No immediate refunds of contributions were publicly detailed, though the group had maintained donor secrecy throughout its campaign.

Controversies and Critiques

Allegations of Electoral Spoilage

Democratic strategists and advocacy groups, including and , alleged that a No Labels presidential candidacy would function as an electoral spoiler primarily against by siphoning votes from Democratic-leaning independents and moderates, thereby enabling to secure victories in battleground states through vote plurality splits. 's analyses drew parallels to the 2000 election, where Ralph Nader's campaign garnered 2.74% of the national popular vote and 97,488 votes in —exceeding Al Gore's margin of defeat by 537 votes—prompting ongoing among electoral scholars about its causal role in George W. Bush's win. These groups projected similar dynamics in 2024, estimating that even modest No Labels support (e.g., 3-5% nationally) could tip razor-thin margins in states like , , and , where Biden's 2020 victories ranged from 1.2% to 2.8%. Polling on hypothetical third-party candidates, however, suggested No Labels might draw comparably from disaffected voters across partisan lines rather than disproportionately from one side, with surveys indicating broad dissatisfaction: a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll from October 2023 found 14% of voters disliked both Biden and Trump, while Gallup reported 63% overall support for a third major party in the same period. A March 2024 Third Way-commissioned poll of No Labels' preferred "unity ticket" candidates (e.g., and ) showed the ticket polling at 7-9% nationally but finishing fourth behind Biden, Trump, and RFK Jr., with voter breakdowns revealing appeal to independents (40% of whom identified as open to alternatives) without clear partisan skew. Electoral simulations underscored causal uncertainty in third-party impacts, varying by battleground state demographics and turnout dynamics; for instance, models assumed Democratic vote erosion but acknowledged scenarios where heightened independent mobilization could boost overall participation without net harm to either major candidate. Historical precedents, such as Ross Perot's 18.9% in 1992 drawing from George H.W. Bush's base more than Bill Clinton's, illustrate that spoiler effects are not unidirectional and depend on candidate positioning, with no empirical data confirming intent by No Labels to favor Trump over Biden.

Claims of Partisan Bias and Dark Money Influence

Critics, particularly from left-leaning outlets, have accused No Labels of exhibiting a Republican tilt due to the predominance of GOP-aligned donors in its funding base. A 2023 Mother Jones investigation revealed that major contributors included Richard Uihlein, a conservative megadonor who has given tens of millions to Republican causes, and other figures like John Arnold, though the outlet emphasized the conservative skew in large donations potentially influencing the group's strategy to field a 2024 ticket seen as more detrimental to Democrats. Similar claims appeared in a 2018 Intercept report labeling No Labels as effectively Republican-leaning based on early funding from executives with GOP ties. These allegations extend to "dark money" influence, as No Labels operates as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization, allowing anonymous donations that evade full disclosure requirements under federal law. Outlets like and have highlighted how this structure obscures donor identities, fueling speculation that undisclosed Republican benefactors exert undue sway over candidate selection and policy priorities, despite the group's bipartisan branding. Democratic-aligned groups have filed complaints with the FEC seeking donor transparency, arguing that such opacity masks potential partisan agendas. Regarding leadership, verifiable ties include co-chairs like , a former Republican governor and U.S. ambassador under both parties, and , ex-Republican governor, raising questions about GOP insider influence. However, these are balanced by Democratic co-founders such as , a strategist with ties to centrist Democratic efforts, and , the independent former senator with Democratic roots. Critics contend that donor dominance overshadows this mix, while defenders note No Labels' avoidance of direct party PAC funding preserves independence, though empirical donor data from disclosed sources shows a heavier Republican weighting in high-dollar contributions.

Organizational Responses and Empirical Counterarguments

No Labels officials, including CEO , publicly rejected accusations of intending to spoil the election for either major-party candidate, asserting that the organization would withdraw its presidential bid if internal polling indicated it would inadvertently aid one side over the other. In December 2023, the group cited analyses suggesting a unity ticket could draw comparable support from and (later ) in battleground states, potentially harming Trump more due to greater dissatisfaction among moderate Republicans. The organization framed its efforts within a critique of the entrenched , arguing that it perpetuates policy stagnation by marginalizing independent voters—who comprised 49% of Americans per 2023 Gallup data—and discouraging cross-aisle reforms. No Labels highlighted historical precedents where third-party campaigns disrupted the duopoly and extracted concessions, such as the push under , which amplified demands for trust-busting, , and labor protections later incorporated by major parties, or Ross Perot's 1992 independent run, which elevated deficit reduction to a bipartisan priority amid his 19% popular vote share. While No Labels' advocacy has demonstrably increased public and media focus on centrist, problem-solving amid polarized discourse, its nondisclosure of major donors—permitted under its 501(c)(4) social welfare status—and protracted secrecy around candidate recruitment processes drew bipartisan skepticism, arguably intensifying perceptions of and eroding trust in its nonpartisan claims.

Post-2024 Evolution

Shift to Local and State-Level Focus

Following the April 4, 2024, suspension of its presidential campaign, No Labels redirected resources toward state and local political engagement, prioritizing support for centrist candidates in down-ballot races to cultivate a broader infrastructure. This strategic pivot emphasized practical, non-partisan issues such as infrastructure improvements, which the organization had long advocated through proposals like a national infrastructure bank to address regional needs without federal gridlock. In , this focus manifested in efforts to empower local candidacies. On July 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that No Labels could not prohibit its Arizona affiliates from running as independents in municipal elections, overturning prior party restrictions and facilitating participation in city council and other local contests. Building on this, the No Labels Party of Arizona rebranded as the Arizona Independent Party on October 17, 2025, approved by the Secretary of State; with 42,277 registered voters, it became the state's third-largest party behind Democrats (1,269,886) and Republicans (1,603,141). The change eliminates petition signature requirements for unaffiliated candidates under Arizona law, enabling centrists to compete more viably in state legislative and local races without major-party affiliation. In contrast, No Labels withdrew its qualified party status in on October 2, 2025, leveraging new legislation passed earlier that year to allow voluntary dissolution—a provision prompted by the group's request to Maine's . Having qualified in January 2024 mainly to support presidential , the party had minimal state-level activity; its roughly 1,000 enrolled voters were automatically reclassified as unenrolled, leaving Maine with four qualified parties: Democratic, Republican, Independent, and Libertarian. This decision streamlined operations by shedding nominal party infrastructure in low-viability states, redirecting efforts to jurisdictions with stronger potential for local wins. These state-level maneuvers reflect No Labels' post-2024 emphasis on empirical base-building through targeted, winnable contests, avoiding overextension in national third-party challenges where historical data shows sub-2% vote shares for independents.

Ongoing Activities and Future Prospects

In 2025, No Labels operates the No Labels Academy, a membership program providing monthly online courses on critical policy areas, along with curated articles, podcasts, videos, recommended readings, and weekly live discussions with policy experts to deliver fact-based analysis free from partisan framing. This initiative, launched mid-year, aims to equip participants with tools for informed by emphasizing empirical public views over ideological narratives. The organization also issues research briefs documenting cross-partisan consensus on pressing issues, such as a September 2025 survey on revealing that 85% of regard legal immigration as a driver of (58% major, 27% minor) and 84% see it bolstering U.S. businesses, alongside broad support for pathways to for Dreamers (85%) and increased border security (78%). These outputs underscore No Labels' focus on data-driven evidence of majority sentiments that transcend party lines, including economic implications like workforce contributions from legal entrants. Prospects for expansion include potential backing of centrist candidates in the midterms or pushes for institutional reforms to amplify independent problem-solvers in , leveraging observed public agreement to scale influence amid ongoing . However, sustained polarization—evidenced by Gallup data showing U.S. partisan divides at historic highs, with only 28% of Americans identifying as independents yet distrusting both major parties—poses challenges to third-way viability, as causal factors like media fragmentation and entrench binary competition over consensus-building. No Labels' success may hinge on demonstrating tangible legislative wins through its supported bipartisan coalitions, such as the expanded , to counter perceptions of marginal impact.

References

  1. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/no-labels/
  2. https://democracyparadox.com/2023/10/02/behind-the-facade-the-dark-money-game-of-no-labels/
  3. https://apnews.com/article/no-labels-2024-third-party-biden-trump-c7477857e1dd05535326b8850f4500a1
  4. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/04/1242890689/no-labels-election-presidential-candidate
  5. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/centrist-group-labels-sues-democratic-operatives-efforts-derail/story?id=116206191
  6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/24/no-labels-goes-after-opponents-third-party-presidential-bid-court/
  7. https://nolabels.org/
  8. https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2010/12/13/132033081/new-no-labels-movement-seeks-bipartisanship
  9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/national/2010/12/14/no-labels-group-seeking-nonpartisan-middle-ground/d5e47f28-0723-11e0-a8ae-4feaca904fcc/
  10. https://www.linkedin.com/in/nancy-jacobson-48aaaa40
  11. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/congressional-reform-proposals-for-the-21st-century/
  12. https://www.utc.edu/sites/default/files/2020-11/essenceofnolabels.pdf
  13. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senators-join-bipartisan-call-reforms-congress/story?id=15142450
  14. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/10/no-labels-politics-movement/5357227/
  15. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=2010_party_unity.pdf
  16. https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/documents/working-papers/2010/IPR-WP-10-11.pdf
  17. https://ballotpedia.org/Problem_Solvers_Caucus
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26600448
  19. https://nolabels.org/what-no-labels-believes/
  20. https://nolabels.org/the-latest/alaska-bipartisanship-how-alaska-broke-the-gridlock/
  21. https://nolabels.org/resources/how-bipartisanship-has-worked-in-the-past-case-studies/
  22. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/no-labels-logic/677279/
  23. https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-is-no-labels-trying-to-do
  24. http://nolabels.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/No-Labels-Policy-Handbook.pdf
  25. https://apnews.com/article/lieberman-no-labels-christie-trump-biden-90b74fedecf72880d41e900fec3da7f2
  26. https://nolabels.org/meet-the-team/
  27. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/19/no-labels-asks-justice-department-to-investigate-its-opponents-efforts/72280465007/
  28. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/17/us/politics/no-labels-manchin-huntsman-event.html
  29. https://opentodebate.org/debaters/ryan-clancy/
  30. https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00827543/
  31. https://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/about
  32. https://inequality.org/article/no-labels-problem-solvers-wall-street/
  33. https://nolabels.org/no-labels-academy/
  34. https://nolabels.org/get-involved/
  35. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/triad/politics/2024/04/06/no-labels-explains-ending-run
  36. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/04/no-labels-drops-out-candidate-presidential-election
  37. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/17/no-labels-raised-millions-from-six-figure-donors.html
  38. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/06/no-labels-exposed-heres-a-list-of-donors-funding-its-effort-to-disrupt-the-2024-race/
  39. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/23/no-labels-third-party-bid-election-00103331
  40. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/detail/2024?cmte=C00827543&tab=donors_all
  41. https://www.lwv.org/lwvus-urges-no-labels-disclose-its-donors
  42. https://thelawmakers.org/legislative-research/no-labels-problem-solvers-caucus
  43. https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/325130/no-labels-the-group-fighting-for-the-political-center/
  44. http://nolabels.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/The-Speaker-Project.pdf
  45. http://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/media/press-releases/historic-bipartisan-emergency-pandemic-relief-package-formed-problem-solvers
  46. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/in-new-national-ad-from-no-labels-national-co-chair-larry-hogan-hails-bipartisan-house-problem-solvers-and-senate-allies-for-spurring-passage-of-covid-19-relief-bill-301197578.html
  47. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/no-labels-takeaway-from-passage-of-historic-infrastructure-bill-america-wins-extreme-left-and-right-lose-301418023.html
  48. https://join.nolabels.org/091125
  49. http://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/about
  50. http://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/bills
  51. https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2023/04/28/five_facts_on_the_house_problem_solvers_caucus_896433.html
  52. https://problemsolverscaucus.house.gov/media/press-releases/problem-solvers-caucus-earns-high-marks-working-across-aisle
  53. https://www.thelugarcenter.org/ourwork-Bipartisan-Index.html
  54. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R46597.html
  55. https://newrepublic.com/post/180466/no-labels-2024-election-failure-good-riddance
  56. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-no-labels-third-party-bid-a-plan-that-will-re-elect-trump
  57. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx
  58. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/16/1224878083/many-voters-reject-the-2-major-parties-how-could-that-play-into-elections
  59. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/us/politics/no-labels-president-manchin.html
  60. https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/17/politics/joe-manchin-no-labels-new-hampshire
  61. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/18/no-labels-nikki-haley-00136369
  62. https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/no-labels-gains-2024-ballot-access-12th-state-rcna121916
  63. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/joe-manchin-third-party-candidates/676178/
  64. https://www.wispolitics.com/2024/no-labels-files-nearly-27k-signatures-to-secure-wisconsin-presidential-ballot-access/
  65. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/politics/democrats-third-party-candidates.html
  66. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-allies-plot-thwart-third-party-bids-that-threaten-his-reelection-2024-01-18/
  67. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-labels-party-2024-presidential-ballot-access-effort-complaint/
  68. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-no-labels-a-political-party-or-social-welfare-organization/
  69. https://ballot-access.org/2024/10/04/no-labels-election-related-lawsuits-are-still-proceeding/
  70. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/no-labels-candidate-third-party-2024-bid-whats-next/story?id=108713544
  71. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/potential-2024-candidates-keep-telling-no-no-labels-pressing-forward-rcna142960
  72. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/new-poll-a-warning-to-any-no-labels-candidates
  73. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/messaging-guidance-on-no-labels-third-party-threat
  74. https://www.thirdway.org/series/the-dangerous-illusion-of-a-presidential-third-party-in-2024
  75. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/these-new-poll-numbers-show-why-biden-and-trump-are-stuck-in-a-2024-dead-heat
  76. https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-no-labels-partys-radical-new-plan-to-force-a-contingent-election
  77. https://theintercept.com/2018/12/04/no-labels-funding-private-equity/
  78. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/who-are-no-labels-donors-democratic-groups-file-complaints-in-an-attempt-to-find-out
  79. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/no-labels-ceo-defends-2024-ticket-spoiler-charges-rcna94378
  80. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/third-party-no-labels-will-not-be-spoiler-2024-election-chair-says-2023-07-16/
  81. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/30/us-third-party-group-no-labels-trump
  82. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/no-labels-wont-help-trump-win-presidential-election-third-party-candidate-aa8fca37
  83. https://nolabels.org/the-latest/is-america-on-the-verge-of-a-third-party-breakthrough/
  84. https://theweek.com/third-parties/1026047/history-of-third-parties
  85. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/no-labels-ends-2024-presidential-efforts-rcna146455
  86. http://nolabels.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Make-Government-Work.pdf
  87. https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/071325_no_labels_candidates/
  88. https://ktar.com/arizona-election-articles/no-labels-independent-party/5764461/
  89. https://www.axios.com/local/phoenix/2025/10/17/no-labels-arizona-independent-party
  90. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2025/10/no-labels-party-of-arizona-rebrands-as-arizona-independent-party/
  91. https://mainemorningstar.com/briefs/no-labels-party-withdraws-from-maine/
  92. https://www.wmtw.com/article/no-labels-political-party-no-longer-qualified-maine/68285973
  93. https://www.bangordailynews.com/2025/10/02/politics/elections/no-labels-party-withdraws-maine/
  94. https://www.wabi.tv/2025/10/03/political-party-no-longer-qualified-maine/
  95. https://www.pressherald.com/2025/10/02/no-labels-party-officially-dissolves-in-maine/
  96. https://www.denvergazette.com/2024/12/12/no-labels-returns-to-its-roots-to-prove-relevance-after-failed-2024-effort-97ec251d-a158-50e2-b743-69749df1f891/
  97. https://www.facebook.com/NoLabels/posts/no-labels-academy-is-a-new-way-to-cut-through-the-noise-and-get-real-unfiltered-/1046250077691041/
  98. https://nolabels.org/the-latest/what-americans-really-think-about-immigration-in-2025/
  99. https://nolabels.org/the-latest/meet-no-labels-new-national-leaders/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.