State Candidate PAC Principles

[osan]

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...

Key principle: primacy of the NAP. Candidates should be judged largely on their orientation and attitude toward the NAP and how to see it implemented in law and policy.

 

[osan]

people with strong pro 2nd and 10th amendment stances

Fuck the 10th. The NINTH Amendment is far and away more important. It and the Second are the two most important elements of the Constitution, leaving the rest in the dust.

Another thing - make all candidates swear an oath to defend the Constitution from a position of strict constructionism prior to getting our support.

 

[osan]

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?

Easy - sorta - draft bylaws. Good ones. Really good ones.

Also, keep the membership active and require their input to candidates for approval, thereby disallowing a small cabal of insiders from steering the ship aground. This is the internet age my friends - let us cobble a voting mechanism into candidate pages such that the decisions are not made in vacuo. The more hands in this pot the better, IMO.

It is not perfect, of course - the organization will be only as good as the people comprising it.

Also, strong vetting of board members, subject to membership scrutiny and perhaps even being voted in? Not sure about the voting part. As I said, only as good as the people. We cannot guarantee anything. If the hearts of the future are not in it, the orgnaization will die. It is up to us to contrive the mechanisms that will keep the right people in. How about board membership only from those who have been members 5 or more years? Just tossing out random thoughts here.

 

[osan]

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.

Agreed. Strict non-interventionist orientation should be an absolute requirement. These may be state-level elections, but those people end up on other places in time. We want GOOD, through-solid people on our side - not pragmatist scum who go whichever way the winds blow. If we do not take a hard as nails position on the fundamentals, we are wasting our time and should drop it right here, right now.

 

[osan]

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.

Point of structure:

We need a two-level set of criteria. The bottom level consists of the fundamentals - those elements a candidate must match on 100%, no exceptions. The other are the "nice to haves" to which candidates must match, say, 75%. We should have some flexibility on certain issues, and on others none. For example, there should be no flexibility on property rights, firearms, defense of life limb and property, and so forth.

 

[osan]

Agreed, but I would say our criteria should be supporting the most libertarian candidates who can win.
We should use cost-benefit analysis.

I will agree with this to the extent that a candidate completely satisfies the minimum requirements. Otherwise we are the same as everyone else and should forget it.

 

[osan]

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.

You are right on the money Josh. I concur 100.1%

We have said we will be principled. Here is a great place to start. Those principles will not always be popular not easy. Nobody said it would be easy.

 

[osan]

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.

Hear hear. Well said sir. We HAVE to cut through the bullshit or we are going nowhere. We have to be consistent and prove ourselves worthy of TRUST.

Let us start a list of principles:

NAP
Non interventionism
Property rights (including allodial title)
RKBA
Honest money ( no fiat ever )
No social wars (drug war, war on terror, war on poverty, etc)
No social programs (phase out SS, welfare, medicare, etc)
Free markets
No corporate welfare
End corporate personhood (maintain certain rights which are essential)
REAL transparency
end executive orders
end rule by policy
end the Fed
End the IRS

 

[osan]

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.

Agreed. Come up with the ideas and I will write pledges that will have their balls in a vise. If I am good at nothing else, I am good at that.

 

[osan]

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.

Once again, it behooves us to be very careful on choosing that upon which we choose to compromise. There must be a bright line in the sand that delineates that we will compromise on and that which is etched into hard stone. Never ever, for example, compromise in any way or degree on the Second Amendment.

 

[osan]

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

Right thinking.

What will be a major hurdle is figuring out how to determine which candidates are viable. Internal polls + admin discretion?

Observation of candidate's history is one place, though this can be deceptive. Lots of talk, preferably over dinner and drinks - at social functions - events and circumstances where he is likely to let his hair down and give a truer picture of what he is about.

 

[JoshLowry]

Hear hear. Well said sir. We HAVE to cut through the bullshit or we are going nowhere. We have to be consistent and prove ourselves worthy of TRUST.

Let us start a list of principles:

NAP
Non interventionism
Property rights (including allodial title)
RKBA
Honest money ( no fiat ever )
No social wars (drug war, war on terror, war on poverty, etc)
No social programs (phase out SS, welfare, medicare, etc)
Free markets
No corporate welfare
End corporate personhood (maintain certain rights which are essential)
REAL transparency
end executive orders
end rule by policy
end the Fed
End the IRS

I like your list. Maybe put them under three umbrellas of liberty, prosperity, and peace?

 

[osan]

Reagan had an 80-20 rule.

Politics is about quid pro quo. If you don't help out others you will stand alone.

Well and good, to a point. Reagan was a doddering fool most, if not all of his time in office. No offense intended, but that is what I saw there. Let us not model ourselves on such. Heaven forbid.

 

[osan]

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?

If this is all we can look forward to, then why are we bothering? I'm not in much humor to become just another whore.

I look at this project as an acid test of what the people of this nation are really made of. If we cannot rise to some prominence based on what we know to be sound principles, then this nation is not worth trying to save, and indeed I look forward to living long enough to see it destroyed. As infested with stupid people as this nation may be, I believe in the smart ones - that they are worth trying to save and that their posterity is worth trying to rescue from these lunatics who run this circus of rank insanity.

I don't care that we compromise on certain things, but never on the core principles. To do so is to abandon that in which we profess to believe. Does anyone thing that those whom we presume to serve will not see this right up front? We'd better be pure as the driven snow and squeaky clean.

 

[Travlyr]

Another thing - make all candidates swear an oath to defend the Constitution from a position of strict constructionism prior to getting our support.

I am of the opinion that the founders intended to bind elected officials to their Oath of Office with a bond. And that is evidenced by Article VI Clause 3. Although the people did not pay any attention, the penal bond accomplished that goal until it was abandoned in the mid-1960's. Both the U.S. Constitution and most, if not all, State Constitutions require Oath of Office bonding. The penal bond is an effective way to make certain elected officials remain loyal to Constitutional principles.

bound (adj.1)
"fastened," mid-14c., in figurative sense of "compelled," from bounden, pp. of bind (q.v.). Meaning "under obligation" is from late 15c.; the literal sense "made fast by tying" is the latest recorded (1550s).

Article. VI. Clause 3
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

 

[nayjevin]

Hear hear. Well said sir. We HAVE to cut through the bullshit or we are going nowhere. We have to be consistent and prove ourselves worthy of TRUST.

Let us start a list of principles:

NAP
Non interventionism
Property rights (including allodial title)
RKBA
Honest money ( no fiat ever )
No social wars (drug war, war on terror, war on poverty, etc)
No social programs (phase out SS, welfare, medicare, etc)
Free markets
No corporate welfare
End corporate personhood (maintain certain rights which are essential)
REAL transparency
end executive orders
end rule by policy
end the Fed
End the IRS

This is not far from Constitutionalism + a few amendments. I see wisdom in Ron's approach: The Constitution is not perfect, but respect and consideration of it by legislators will solve a great deal of the problems we have. And it can be amended.

From an issue standpoint, each will mean something different, and will have greater or lesser importance to each individual. But any overarching language should reflect the desires of those involved.

Ultimately people ought learn such that they are good and just and moral, and then that government represents them. Who wants a government that represents the people when the people are immoral?

I chose these clarifications for the issues I see as fundamental:

NAP
- aggression tends to cause problems
Non interventionism
- pre-emptive war is immoral; meddling tends to cause problems
Honest money
- ??
Free markets
- centralization, regulation tends toward corruption
transparency
- decisionmakers should be accountable
End the IRS
- Income tax hurts prosperity

 

[MRoCkEd]

I hope that list isn't the litmus test. I wouldn't pass it and neither would all but probably three house candidates.

 

[Jordan]

I hope that list isn't the litmus test. I wouldn't pass it and neither would all but probably three house candidates.

I wouldn't either.

 

[JoshLowry]

I hope that list isn't the litmus test. I wouldn't pass it and neither would all but probably three house candidates.

It's a good start.

What would you and Jordan take off first?

 

[MRoCkEd]

It's a good start.

What would you and Jordan take off first?

I just think there has to be some wiggle room from a 100% pure libertarian philosophy. which is essentially what is described above. If we won't support anyone who diverges from Ron Paul on monetary or foreign policy, we're going nowhere.

I wonder if this PAC could support Milton Friedman (if he was alive)? John Hostettler? Walter E. Williams? Pat Buchanan? Joe Miller? Even Justin Amash or Rand Paul in campaign mode?

All of these would be disqualified by strict application of that list.

I think nayjevin is on to something here:

This is not far from Constitutionalism + a few amendments. I see wisdom in Ron's approach: The Constitution is not perfect, but respect and consideration of it by legislators will solve a great deal of the problems we have. And it can be amended.

From an issue standpoint, each will mean something different, and will have greater or lesser importance to each individual. But any overarching language should reflect the desires of those involved.

Ultimately people ought learn such that they are good and just and moral, and then that government represents them. Who wants a government that represents the people when the people are immoral?

I chose these clarifications for the issues I see as fundamental:

NAP
- aggression tends to cause problems
Non interventionism
- pre-emptive war is immoral; meddling tends to cause problems
Honest money
- ??
Free markets
- centralization, regulation tends toward corruption
transparency
- decisionmakers should be accountable
End the IRS
- Income tax hurts prosperity

We could have maybe a 50 question quiz that gauges overall philosophy, with candidates having to meet some minimum threshold for each category.

For instance, on foreign policy, we couldn't support someone who believes the Iraq war was worth it.

On monetary policy, we couldn't support someone who believes the Fed should set interest rates, or agrees with any of their policies leading up to and following the crash.

We couldn't support someone who believes the federal government can impose drug policy on the states.

etc. etc.