State Candidate PAC Principles

[Kludge]

I seriously doubt the PAC will not have enough candidates to fund because the purity test is too strict. Has that EVER been a problem here - where we have too much money and too few candidates?

 

[forsmant]

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?

A PAC is nothing more than a political party. Albeit a much smaller and more exclusive version. Shutting off debate will leave you gathering 2%. Purity and politics do not go together. We should focus on integrity and agenda. Certainly the PAC would not donate to a Mark Rubio, but what about a Mike Lee?

 

[JoshLowry]

this PACs purpose is to elect candidates that are willing to shrink state government and resist federal mandates.

I don't think anyone has agreed on anything yet.

I think it would be better served as a farming system to support Glen Bradley like candidates.

A purity test will limit our influence and donations. Loosening our standards will gain us greater success.

The candidates are the influence. A purity test will get your more donations because you are specific.

You can't just start a PAC and let the money roll in. It has to stand for something.

 

[JoshLowry]

A PAC is nothing more than a political party. Albeit a much smaller and more exclusive version. Shutting off debate will leave you gathering 2%. Purity and politics do not go together. We should focus on integrity and agenda. Certainly the PAC would not donate to a Mark Rubio, but what about a Mike Lee?

So we are stuck with 98% garbage and if we wish to participate on a larger scale then it is our principles that must be compromised?

 

[Kludge]

A PAC is nothing more than a political party. Albeit a much smaller and more exclusive version. Shutting off debate will leave you gathering 2%. Purity and politics do not go together. We should focus on integrity and agenda. Certainly the PAC would not donate to a Mark Rubio, but what about a Mike Lee?

I think viability should be a major factor in deciding whether or not to support a candidate AFTER they pass a purity test. This would not result in problems of candidates only taking 2% in an election.

If there is ever a case where the PAC's candidates are all certain to win and giving them more money would be a waste, the money can simply collect and a warchest will be built up so potential candidates (probably on RPFs especially) will be encouraged to run.

 

[malkusm]

I seriously doubt the PAC will not have enough candidates to fund because the purity test is too strict. Has that EVER been a problem here - where we have too much money and too few candidates?

State candidates? Yeah. We had one in 2010 that I'm aware of. We had zero in 2008. I'm not completely confident that we're going to have 25+ in 2012, nor do I want to rely on this forum as our sole source of funding. People's focus around here will be in one place and on one man, and rightly so to a large extent. We need to branch out, if only marginally, to be viable.

 

[MRoCkEd]

How about we outline more generic principles that will attract donations from people who want smaller government, though maybe not as small as us (ie Tea Party) but we have a more strict internal process for choosing candidates.

 

[malkusm]

How about we outline more generic principles that will attract donations from people who want smaller government, though maybe not as small as us (ie Tea Party) but we have a more strict internal process for choosing candidates.

This sounds like a good approach.

 

[Kludge]

How about we outline more generic principles that will attract donations from people who want smaller government, though maybe not as small as us (ie Tea Party) but we have a more strict internal process for choosing candidates.

PACs already exist for them, though - right?

What about us - the relatively radical libertarians who seek to work in the Two Party system? This PAC would be unique in how rooted it would be in RPFs, no?

 

[forsmant]

It will stand for something. But you seem to insist that it will never donate to a person who is not willng to commit to a non interventionist foreign policy. I believe that to be a non issue at the state level. If a candidate is solid on shrinking state government ad resisting federal mandates, something I assumed we all agreed on here on RPFs, but has no idea about foreign policy should not necessarily eliminate him from consideration. I'm sure there will be plenty of debate as to who the PAC would donate to but making them commit to a federal issue seems purist.

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.

 

[JoshLowry]

So we are stuck with 98% garbage and if we wish to participate on a larger scale then it is our principles that must be compromised?

So this is what we are going for?

Rather than expand our 2%, we are going to see which of the 98% are sort of like us?

What is the point?

State candidates? Yeah. We had one in 2010 that I'm aware of. We had zero in 2008. I'm not completely confident that we're going to have 25+ in 2012, nor do I want to rely on this forum as our sole source of funding. People's focus around here will be in one place and on one man, and rightly so to a large extent. We need to branch out, if only marginally, to be viable.

This forum will not be the sole source for funding malkusm, but it can give this project some legs to get off the ground.

Watered down orgs are worthless and I wouldn't encourage anyone to donate to one. We can expand our percentage numbers without compromising. That's the very reason why our movement is attractive. You don't see the momentum in going from 1 liberty candidate - Ron Paul in 2008 to the 5 or 6 we have now here in 2010?

People's focus around here will be in one place and on one man

It's the principles and consistency in his record. It has nothing to do with the name.

 

[Kludge]

It will stand for something. But you seem to insist that it will never donate to a person who is not willng to commit to a non interventionist foreign policy. I believe that to be a non issue at the state level. If a candidate is solid on shrinking state government ad resisting federal mandates, something I assumed we all agreed on here on RPFs, but has no idea about foreign policy should not necessarily eliminate him from consideration. I'm sure there will be plenty of debate as to who the PAC would donate to but making them commit to a federal issue seems purist.

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.

A point to add in favor of your argument which I think's worth considering -- if the PAC is of any significance, it could potentially sway the candidates they helped win election to state office. The PAC should try to establish close connections with the candidates - there should be a leader there with personal relationships with the candidates the PAC endorses.

 

[forsmant]

If those other 5 or 6 candidates took a purity test none would receive the score of Ron Paul.

 

[JoshLowry]

If those other 5 or 6 candidates took a purity test none would receive the score of Ron Paul.

I wouldn't consider any of those that I am thinking of as being interventionists or pro preemptive strikes.

You just recommended we not have a purity test, how did these candidates fail it already?

We should put together a test or pledge that the candidates take. If they vote otherwise then we take away support.

 

[forsmant]

One last thing before bed, if a candidate that the PAC endorsed at the state level seeks a federal office then we can get pure on his ass and use PAC money against him.

 

[MRoCkEd]

There obviously needs to be some sort of purity test. We'll have to figure out where to draw the line.

For instance, is a John Hostettler type candidate good enough? - A true fiscal conservative and non-interventionist who supported the PATRIOT Act?

What about a true constitutionalist who wants to nullify laws, but doesn't want to legalize drugs in his state?

 

[forsmant]

I didn't say not have a purity test. I'm saying that an 80-20 agreement is still worthy of support. OR even a 70-30 depending on the issues the PAC and candidate are agreeable. I supported a pledge or even a PAC council to determine worthiness. I believe being an interventionist is not necessarily something to eliminate support on at the state level.

So instead of quibbling about federal issues lets use this thread to determine how candidates would be chosen for support. Lets put up some pledges or purity tests.

 

[Kludge]

On a related note - maybe it should be considered to hold an actual physical conference/meeting. Different "cliques" could propose different ideas they've thought of together and then present their own plans. If there is too much difference, perhaps they should split and compete for RPFs (and others') money. As far as I can remember, J-Lo has always been fond of competing ideas, so why not competing RPFs PACs, as well? - Assuming there is enough passion in the disagreements between the parties.

 

[malkusm]

I don't think this issue is as simple as to be solved in this thread. I think it's obvious that the PAC exists first and foremost to serve us, and thus the priorities for funding start from people here who are non-interventionist Austrians. If we get 10 of those candidates, then we should fund all 10. But should that be where we draw the line?

In my opinion, it's not worth the effort to create the PAC if that's the goal. Getting a PAC going requires substantial planning and a team of dedicated volunteers. If we're doing it to push $20k to 10 candidates, is it worth the effort? Is it worth it to have folks in 20 other states (where we are supporting zero candidates) committed to filing paperwork before every election, for essentially no purpose?

 

[JoshLowry]

There obviously needs to be some sort of purity test. We'll have to figure out where to draw the line.

It should be hammered out before the PAC is formed and it's board members are decided upon.

Who out of our small group gets to decide on the algorithm or which core principles are passed?

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