State Candidate PAC Principles

[Kotin]

Should this whole board be taken private til we figure that out?

Might not be a bad idea..

 

[CaseyJones]

leave it open

 

[Theocrat]

Brainstorming

This is what I've come up with so far:

• The State Candidate PAC seeks candidates to office in state legislatures who strongly believe in and promise to adhere to the principles of limited government based on the Constitutions within their states.
• The State Candidate PAC strives to support candidates who will uphold their oaths of office to protect God-given rights of their constituents within their respective states and will duly fight against all legislation and policies which involve intrusive powers from the federal government upon the states, as outlined in the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
• The State Candidate PAC encourages grassroots involvement in the promotion and election of state candidates by searching out liberty-minded citizens on the local level who hold to the original principles of a free republic as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and in accordance with the rule of law.

 

[JoshLowry]

That's a very nice summary Theo.

Thanks!

 

[LibertyMage]

Alas this debate is a little preemptive seeing as how the PAC hasn't come up with any focus nor do we have any candidates to donate to yet.

This is the kind of productive conversation that needs to happen now.

Of all the various ways of top down qualifying of candidates, none is going to be 100% accurate and all will be too exclusive. We had two excellent candidates that barely lost here in Maryland. I would find it hard to believe that they would agree with the way I would personally vote 100% of the time. Nor would they vote with each other 100% of the time. I think it is fair to consider Ron Paul the exception until proven otherwise. To expect a 100% return on our planning is probably unrealistic.

I think modeling this PAC after a successful campaign to find the harmony we are looking for would be more effective. Rand Paul's race is a good example. He was able to gain ground for our movement without shooting himself in the foot by putting more radical points first (for the most part) while still advocating positions of people like ourselves.

Putting first issues first, I think we should declare our expectations first: (hopefully I am not being to presumptive, I just wanted to throw some things out there)

1. The primary intent of this PAC is to identify and develop local leaders that will advocate and promote our ideas in public office.

Next, come the normal expectations that most right leaning/Tea Party people we would expect:

2. We will only support candidates that have publicly advocated constitutional government and the elimination of taxes and economic regulations.

Next, the qualifications that separate our candidates from the others...

3. We will only support candidates that have publicly advocated tendencies of individual liberty and individual responsibility over government intervention.

Lastly, qualifications that would make this candidate relevant.

4. Recommendations from local contacts.
5. A winnable race (within 5%-6% margin).
6. At least a small support team of volunteers.

I think this set of qualifications would give us a pretty good framework for consideration that would require proven public positions without creating a system of elimination. I will note that public positions are the best ideological gauge for candidates as they can be used for or against a candidate and force them to hold their ground against potential political pressure. This is how all interest groups build PACs that support candidates - they get candidates on the record. Of course numbers 2 and 3 can be tweaked as necessary.

1. The primary intent of this PAC is to identify and develop local leaders that will advocate and promote our ideas in public office.
2. We will only support candidates that have publicly advocated constitutional government and the elimination of taxes and economic regulations.
3. We will only support candidates that have publicly advocated tendencies of individual liberty and individual responsibility over government intervention.
4. Recommendations from local contacts.
5. A winnable race (within 5%-6% margin).
6. At least a small support team of volunteers.

 

[LibertyMage]

This is what I've come up with so far:

• The State Candidate PAC seeks candidates to office in state legislatures who strongly believe in and promise to adhere to the principles of limited government based on the Constitutions within their states.
• The State Candidate PAC strives to support candidates who will uphold their oaths of office to protect God-given rights of their constituents within their respective states and will duly fight against all legislation and policies which involve intrusive powers from the federal government upon the states, as outlined in the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
• The State Candidate PAC encourages grassroots involvement in the promotion and election of state candidates by searching out liberty-minded citizens on the local level who hold to the original principles of a free republic as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and in accordance with the rule of law.

I don't mean to be a downer, but language is really important on things like this. You have to word pledges in a way that can be politically used against someone if they act up. If you do not do this, everyone can agree with your platform without any risk because your wording doesn't hold them to anything in a way that is easily communicated to the public.

 

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

Nullification has to be issue #1. If they don't believe in nullification (and I don't just mean filing federal lawsuits; I mean major, uncompromising acts of nullification), then they can't be counted on to do the work that really needs to be done.

I recommend using some of the principles from the Tenth Amendment Center's 10-4 Pledge at http://pledge.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-state-pledge/ and requiring that candidates who want the PAC's assistance agree to some of those key provisions.

 

[Thomas]

One of the first things the PAC should do in my opinion is get a copy of "Nullification" into the hands of every state legislator!

 

[MRoCkEd]

One of the first things the PAC should do in my opinion is get a copy of "Nullification" into the hands of every state legislator!

What did Rothfeld say about the education theory?

 

[Thomas]

What did Rothfeld say about the education theory?

Education is important for long term success, plus, how do we expect nullification to happen if none of them even know what it is?

 

[Legend1104]

What if we have a constitutional congress type debate. As many people submit plans, lists, rules, and/or candidate selections onto the forum and we begin tweaking, adding/subtracting and formulating something solid. This is just beginning to sound like my church business meeting. All talk and no solid action put forward.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I see the merits of both sides here. There needs to also be a place for State level candidates who will stay at the State level, as well as State level candidates who will eventually move on to the Federal level. Finding a balance that will satisfy both sides of this debate may be difficult.

Foreign policy is more important at the State legislature level towards forming an understanding of a candidates basic core principles than looking towards future offices, but it should remain a factor in any case. I'm not sure it should be a primary factor, but it should remain important. A candidate who is aggressively interventionist on foreign policy is likely to be mushy on his or her commitment to noninterventionism in domestic policy.

I think a good model to follow is the iCaucus model. iCaucus has an extraordinarily thorough vetting and endorsement process that can be applied here as well. There is a lengthy candidate questionnaire that once returned gets crunched by the membership to decide who makes it into the interview process. Those that make the interview participate in a conference call with several members who both pick apart the questionnaire and raise further issues to test the candidate. The audio of that call is recorded and the membership then listens to that audio recording and votes on who does and does not receive endorsements.

I think that by following the iCaucus model, we can actually avoid the conflict that is developing here. All we'd have to do is include some foreign policy questions in the initial questionnaire (with the caveat that while foreign policy is not truly relevant to State Legislators it highlights a personal philosophy as well as discerns who will be set up for future races at the Federal level) Include a foreign policy wonk in the conference call, and then let the entire membership vote on who gets the PAC funding.

I think to try and set up a mathematical weighting on the various policy issues as to what counts what doesn't and how much each counts would be a mistake. We are humans and not spreadsheets. Our answers to one thing or another may be misinterpreted. Some folks who believe everything we believe might get excluded because they are circumspect (a la Rand Paul) on foreign policy questions, while others who do not believe as we do may get accepted because they lie.

The iCaucus process I described above cuts all that off at the pass. You don't HAVE to have "X,Y,Z" issues that make or break a candidate. Important issues are simply included in the initial questionnaire, the several questionnaires get voted on by membership to advance to the conference call/interview stage, and the recorded interview gets voted on by the membership as to who receives PAC funds.

Rather than trying to find a compromise between these two positions, since that would be nearly impossible, I think taking a different approach to the vetting process actually takes this conflict off the table by letting individuals be individuals, and all we have to do to ensure that the right people get accepted and the wrong people get rejected, is to keep the right people in our voting membership.

 

[malkusm]

I see the merits of both sides here. There needs to also be a place for State level candidates who will stay at the State level, as well as State level candidates who will eventually move on to the Federal level. Finding a balance that will satisfy both sides of this debate may be difficult.

Foreign policy is more important at the State legislature level towards forming an understanding of a candidates basic core principles than looking towards future offices, but it should remain a factor in any case. I'm not sure it should be a primary factor, but it should remain important. A candidate who is aggressively interventionist on foreign policy is likely to be mushy on his or her commitment to noninterventionism in domestic policy.

I think a good model to follow is the iCaucus model. iCaucus has an extraordinarily thorough vetting and endorsement process that can be applied here as well. There is a lengthy candidate questionnaire that once returned gets crunched by the membership to decide who makes it into the interview process. Those that make the interview participate in a conference call with several members who both pick apart the questionnaire and raise further issues to test the candidate. The audio of that call is recorded and the membership then listens to that audio recording and votes on who does and does not receive endorsements.

I think that by following the iCaucus model, we can actually avoid the conflict that is developing here. All we'd have to do is include some foreign policy questions in the initial questionnaire (with the caveat that while foreign policy is not truly relevant to State Legislators it highlights a personal philosophy as well as discerns who will be set up for future races at the Federal level) Include a foreign policy wonk in the conference call, and then let the entire membership vote on who gets the PAC funding.

I think to try and set up a mathematical weighting on the various policy issues as to what counts what doesn't and how much each counts would be a mistake. We are humans and not spreadsheets. Our answers to one thing or another may be misinterpreted. Some folks who believe everything we believe might get excluded because they are circumspect (a la Rand Paul) on foreign policy questions, while others who do not believe as we do may get accepted because they lie.

The iCaucus process I described above cuts all that off at the pass. You don't HAVE to have "X,Y,Z" issues that make or break a candidate. Important issues are simply included in the initial questionnaire, the several questionnaires get voted on by membership to advance to the conference call/interview stage, and the recorded interview gets voted on by the membership as to who receives PAC funds.

Rather than trying to find a compromise between these two positions, since that would be nearly impossible, I think taking a different approach to the vetting process actually takes this conflict off the table by letting individuals be individuals, and all we have to do to ensure that the right people get accepted and the wrong people get rejected, is to keep the right people in our voting membership.

Gunny - This is a very well reasoned approach, and is very much the way I see us operating going forward. Your post also gave me a couple new ideas in terms of the structure of the "vetting" process. If I could give you +100 rep for this post, I would. In any case, accept my +1.

 

[nayjevin]

A few thoughts:

It seems to me candidates who make accessible, in clear language, the reasoning for political actions taken, whether it be a vote or an expenditure, are most worthy of support.

Perhaps even set up the PAC such that the funds get disbursed with a pledge to use it toward a system where this can be done, like a twitter and a webpage.

--

And just to be clear, am I picturing this right?

- anyone can donate to a candidate, but donating to the PAC instead would provide a vehicle for accountability that an individual donor would not have. Additionally, assuming the PAC's vetting process aligns with the donor, it would save research time.

--

If my assumptions are accurate here, let me still voice my general distrust for the ability of org's to stay true to first principles. But requiring unanimous approval to initiate a new decisionmaker might work. Also, it seems necessary to voice a caution that administrative costs remain low - it seems to me there would be a degree of overhead that would overcome the benefits of pooling resources.

 

[malkusm]

A few thoughts:

It seems to me candidates who make accessible, in clear language, the reasoning for political actions taken, whether it be a vote or an expenditure, are most worthy of support.

Perhaps even set up the PAC such that the funds get disbursed with a pledge to use it toward a system where this can be done, like a twitter and a webpage.

--

And just to be clear, am I picturing this right?

- anyone can donate to a candidate, but donating to the PAC instead would provide a vehicle for accountability that an individual donor would not have. Additionally, assuming the PAC's vetting process aligns with the donor, it would save research time.

--

If my assumptions are accurate here, let me still voice my general distrust for the ability of org's to stay true to first principles. But requiring unanimous approval to initiate a new decisionmaker might work. Also, it seems necessary to voice a caution that administrative costs remain low - it seems to me there would be a degree of overhead that would overcome the benefits of pooling resources.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'll try to address them in turn:

I don't think that the PAC itself would be able to keep up with each vote of each of its endorsed candidates and to aggregate them in one place. Certainly, I think we should encourage candidates to be as transparent as possible.

Those are accurate assessments for the benefits of the PAC. I would also add the fact that in many cases, PACs have much higher contribution limits to candidates than individuals. It also consolidates our resources and allocates them more efficiently. There have been many cases on the forum where we have Candidate X, Candidate Y, and Candidate Z, and one of them got substantial funding and attention while another got considerably less than they needed.

I think the requirement for endorsing a candidate would be to have a majority of the "board" that we set up to approve of them. This vote would only take place after a vetting process: the candidate would need to sign a pledge, and we would have to speak to the candidate and his staff directly to get a feel for what their feeling are on certain issues and what their focus is. But this is still unsettled. I really liked Gunny's post, a few posts before yours, for thinking about a different way to settle on candidates that is more grassroots oriented.

As for administrative costs, I plan on making them as close to ZERO as humanly possible.

 

[nayjevin]

I would also add the fact that in many cases, PACs have much higher contribution limits to candidates than individuals. It also consolidates our resources and allocates them more efficiently. There have been many cases on the forum where we have Candidate X, Candidate Y, and Candidate Z, and one of them got substantial funding and attention while another got considerably less than they needed.

I do not discount what you say, but would be interested to hear someone more educated than I explain how consolidation leads to efficiency, and how to find the most desirable threshold. In some cases we can see that a consolidation of resources aimed in the wrong direction can magnify the problem.

It seems to me that Individuals spending where they see fit guards against this problem, while consolidation and redistribution can help to overcome imbalanced marketing exposure that can occur in small sample sizes. But as always, this is only my best guess as to what is relevant, and the root issue.

 

[Slutter McGee]

I have been one to preach compromise in Federal Elections on foreign policy because I believe domestic economic issues are far more important. This hasn't blessed me with popularity. However, this PAC should be a reflection of our values, and those candidates we support through such a PAC should share a majority of those values, including those regarding foreign policy, despite the fact that such views would not be very important at the state level.

I like Gunny's idea. I don't think that we should support someone who's views are straigt neo-connish, despite how perfect he or she may be on other issues we agree with. At the same time, I don't think it is necessary for us to demand they fall directly in line with Ron Paul's foreign policy.

Example: candidate is skeptical of nation building but doesn't believe we should be closing a military base in Korea. I neither believe that we should automatically support one because he is skeptical of nation building, or reject one because he believes that some foreign military presense is necessary.

In short, like Gunny says, we need a vetting process that stays true to our core principles without being Austrian Econ Disciple type pure.

Slutter McGee

 

[JoshLowry]

In short, like Gunny says, we need a vetting process that stays true to our core principles without being Austrian Econ Disciple type pure.

Slutter McGee

In short, being a non-interventionist is a far cry from being a voluntaryist.

You also can't stay true to your core principles if you are sacrificing them. They would be liberty, prosperity, and peace.

 

[Slutter McGee]

You also can't stay true to your core principles if you are sacrificing them. They would be liberty, prosperity, and peace.

I think that two many people think an alliance with another political group is the same as throwing one's beliefs away. I also think that two many people think any type of compromise is a violation of principles.

One of my principles is that I do not believe in new government programs that cost money, even if they are constitutional.

If I was given the chance to eliminate 5 unconstitutional programs costing a billion dollars but only if I voted for 1 unneeded constitutional program costing 100 million dollars, such compromise would be beneficial to liberty.

That being said, the point I am trying to make is simply that a PAC run for the intended purpose of supporting real liberty candidates should be looking for people who actually share our values, and are not just allied with us on a few fiscal or social or foreign issues.

But nobody here agrees with each other all the time. We WILL have to make small compromises among ourselves. Or better yet, who ever choses the candidates will have to. And those who we support have to please those who donate to the PAC.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[Thomas]

if you compromise, do it in the direction of liberty