State Candidate PAC Principles

JoshLowry

JoshLowry

Señor Manuel
Staff member
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
11,277
Just throwing this thread up...

When talking with Malkusm we both agreed we should have some very solid principles.

Otherwise, what's the difference?

It should be easy to get the support of this PAC, but also easy to be put on it's shit list.

I'm guessing state candidates don't have much say in foreign policy, but the big idea behind this is to springboard candidates from state to federal positions. Issues that might not matter at the state level should matter to the PAC and it's beneficiaries.

Therefore, the only candidates to get support should be non-interventionists, pro-competing currencies, etc...
 
How do you maintain consistency over 30 years?

How do we keep the people who run this pac from using it to support unapproved candidates?
 
If they are only going to be elected to state legislatures I think the focus should be primarily on state sovereignty and the willingness to take on the pension problems. Of course I would love them to be non interventionist too but I'd say that is not necessary.

The PAC should come up with a litmus test or form a counsel to determine candidate worthiness.
 
and people who will look to redistrict not to gerrymander for one of the parties but to properly reflect the local community
 
forsmant said:
If they are only going to be elected to state legislatures I think the focus should be primarily on state sovereignty and the willingness to take on the pension problems. Of course I would love them to be non interventionist too but I'd say that is not necessary.

The PAC should come up with a litmus test or a form a counsel to determine candidate worthiness.
Click to expand...
Agreed

We should probably be vague enough, though, to get support from traditional conservatives and libertarians.
 
Why wouldn't we stay strict on non-interventionism?

There is no point in putting our resources behind potential federal candidates who may be in favor of pre-emptive strikes.

If we start with a good base, the end result will be better. Our resources are already thin as it is.
 
I think that there should be an emphasis on 10th amendment / state sovereignty issues, as that's where we can have the greatest immediate impact. Fiscal conservatism is also a necessity as well....not "earmark-cutting" conservatism, but "we're REALLY going to cut spending drastically" conservatism.

In my mind, there's some room for compromise in other areas (foreign policy, for example) provided that the candidates are rock solid in the 10th amendment / fiscal conservatism camp. Keep in mind that the PAC can donate varying amounts of money to each candidate, depending on the state's contribution limits and the degree to which we believe the candidate can win his race. Club for Growth is seen as a powerhouse, even though it is at odds with the leadership of the GOP at times, because they win. The candidate's ability to win is obviously not our only consideration, or even a high-priority issue....but it certainly has to be considered.

So, bottom line: I think that certainly, if there's a candidate with good views across the board, they are going to get our help without a doubt. And I don't think we'll be supporting people who are coming out war-hawking at every opportunity. But, I think that even if we support a candidate who's only 90% with us (but 100% in the areas that they can affect in state legislature), that's a pretty substantial net gain for us....especially if we require some sort of pledge for them to sponsor/co-sponsor specific legislation.
 
I agree with that. Lets get some sort of pledge going and we can always have discussions. It was said that the PAC was going to transparent.
 
malkusm said:
I think that there should be an emphasis on 10th amendment / state sovereignty issues, as that's where we can have the greatest immediate impact. Fiscal conservatism is also a necessity as well....not "earmark-cutting" conservatism, but "we're REALLY going to cut spending drastically" conservatism.

In my mind, there's some room for compromise in other areas (foreign policy, for example) provided that the candidates are rock solid in the 10th amendment / fiscal conservatism camp. Keep in mind that the PAC can donate varying amounts of money to each candidate, depending on the state's contribution limits and the degree to which we believe the candidate can win his race. Club for Growth is seen as a powerhouse, even though it is at odds with the leadership of the GOP at times, because they win. The candidate's ability to win is obviously not our only consideration, or even a high-priority issue....but it certainly has to be considered.

So, bottom line: I think that certainly, if there's a candidate with good views across the board, they are going to get our help without a doubt. And I don't think we'll be supporting people who are coming out war-hawking at every opportunity. But, I think that even if we support a candidate who's only 90% with us (but 100% in the areas that they can affect in state legislature), that's a pretty substantial net gain for us....especially if we require some sort of pledge for them to sponsor/co-sponsor specific legislation.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I would say our criteria should be supporting the most libertarian candidates who can win.
We should use cost-benefit analysis.
 
This thing is fail from the start if we don't take a hard line stance against pre-emptive war.

This can be successful and we can take a stand that the CFL hasn't made.

Who's going to donate if we're lukewarm on that issue?

I saw this PAC as a farm system like the minor league baseballs teams but for Liberty Candidates.
 
MRoCkEd said:
Agreed, but I would say our criteria should be supporting the most libertarian candidates who can win.
We should use cost-benefit analysis.
Click to expand...

Take it a step further and only support liberty candidates who can win.

Not "the most libertarian". Then we end supporting either a turd or douche sandwich and all the donors are angry at you.

We need to come up with a definition of "liberty candidate" and then ONLY support that specific strain.

You spend even more conservatively and funds are not wasted on bad candidates.
 
JoshLowry said:
Take it a step further and only support liberty candidates who can win.

Not "the most libertarian"

We need to come up with a definition of "liberty candidate" and then ONLY support that specific strain.

You spend even more conservatively and funds are not wasted on bad candidates.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah - I meant most libertarian overall. Not most libertarian in each race, as a lesser evils type of thing.
 
There are thousands of state legislatures than never even attempt to get involved on a federal level. While farming for federal candidates is important, this PACs purpose is to elect candidates that are willing to shrink state government and resist federal mandates. A purity test will limit our influence and donations. Loosening our standards will gain us greater success. Also, anyone seeking to promote a war hawk would be exiled.
 
malkusm said:
I think that there should be an emphasis on 10th amendment / state sovereignty issues, as that's where we can have the greatest immediate impact. Fiscal conservatism is also a necessity as well....not "earmark-cutting" conservatism, but "we're REALLY going to cut spending drastically" conservatism.
Click to expand...

This is probably not going to go over well, but I have found the 10th amendment issue to be something fakes have used to clean their skirts without accomplishing much. Much of what is being pushed around the country doesn't actually force the government to do anything and is therefore irrelevant. While I agree that having a majority of pro-10th amendment majority in state houses may be beneficial for us, we should be careful to weight this appropriately.
 
I'm just wary of taking an extremely hard-line stance and becoming an RPF echo chamber. I think that if we *never* compromise, we bring in maybe $10-15k per year and can find 10 candidates that we will be willing to support. I think we're much more effective if we build alliances and networks, have a pledge for the candidate to sign on 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment (must sponsor/co-sponsor a nullification item), and spending cuts, etc.

If they are only 90% with us, then we have no obligation to continue supporting them if they choose to run for higher office. But I think that, by making those small changes, we are more effective in the immediate short-term.

These types of decisions will be discussed constantly, and at great length, probably for every candidate we look at. I completely expect that. :)
 
I would not be interested in donating to a PAC which does not have a very clear and consistent platform it requires candidates to adhere to almost entirely. A PAC should exist to put ideas into politics, not people into politics. I wouldn't want to fund a PAC which has the administration left with a lot of discretion in choosing who it does and doesn't support. This will prevent people from becoming disenfranchised because the PAC supports a candidate we may dislike.

I think J-Lo's right on in his assessment of what a RPFs PAC should be about - assume the state candidate will become a federal candidate and hold them to federal issues (this makes a state candidate in a state other than that which the candidate is running in more appealing to people out of the state) and only fund the viable candidates.

What will be a major hurdle is figuring out how to determine which candidates are viable. Internal polls + admin discretion?
 
Reagan had an 80-20 rule.

Politics is about quid pro quo. If you don't help out others you will stand alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top