State Candidate PAC Principles

[Jordan]

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:

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.

This.

 

[osan]

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.

Yah, hello.

 

[forsmant]

I agree with Mark. And Osan, of course I know Reagan was a douche, but his 80/20 rule helped him get elected. Its about building coalitions, not burning bridges. We don;t have to compromise on our beliefs, we just have to support people who agree with us on some issues.

 

[osan]

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?

A nice element, but we want to grow way beyond that. Part of the mission is to get the liberty message out to the nation as broadly as possible in order to grow the movement.

 

[osan]

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.

I must respectfully disagree. Having a strong sense of duty at the state level is to be used to its maximum effect in reeling in the imbeciles and warmongers in DC. This is central to our raison d'etre.

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 agree if we believe we can clue him in. If not, I would start thinking about the shitcan for him. We need clued in people, not half bakes. This is pretty important a point, I might add.

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.

First, there is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of purism. Second, your claim predicates on the specific position in question. The acid tests may not be quite the same for state senators and county sheriffs. There would be intersection to be sure, but some issues may be irrelevant to the sheriff's seat and verse vice-a.

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.

True, but this still needs to be broached in the interests of lining up the duckies all nice and purty-like.

 

[osan]

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.

Taking away support may not be sufficient. This is politics - potentially very big league at that. We are certain to make enemies, some of them very powerful, if we threaten the status quo in any way they perceive as egregiously disagreeable. It is therefore not a great stretch to imagine mole candidates being dangled before us for very strategically important positions if we ever get to that level of prominence. Such moles may not be terribly interested in political survival beyond attaining the goals for which they were hired by whomever. This is not far fetched, and therefore we need ways of handling such people that will effectively neutralize traitorous behavior. Such considerations are well down the road and may in fact never become relevant for us, but awareness of the issue is important in case things change.

 

[osan]

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.

Good start.

 

[JoshLowry]

Taking away support may not be sufficient. This is politics - potentially very big league at that. We are certain to make enemies, some of them very powerful, if we threaten the status quo in any way they perceive as egregiously disagreeable. It is therefore not a great stretch to imagine mole candidates being dangled before us for very strategically important positions if we ever get to that level of prominence. Such moles may not be terribly interested in political survival beyond attaining the goals for which they were hired by whomever. This is not far fetched, and therefore we need ways of handling such people that will effectively neutralize traitorous behavior. Such considerations are well down the road and may in fact never become relevant for us, but awareness of the issue is important in case things change.

I'm on the same page.

I really just wanted to keep plugging away at really solid Ron Paul candidates. Going out on a limb for Rand was a unique case.

It's a waste of time and resources to be supporting candidates that are not loyal.

It's also likely to get you bit and we end up funding the next George Bush who said he likes a humble foreign policy and no nation building.

These guys are flat out liars, so we need to get them on the record as liars. Make them lie and fit our mold and our principles, they'll do it. Then we can call them out and say look at these strict promises you broke. Shame them out the next election.

If we allow them to wiggle, they're going to do it.

 

[osan]

Of all the various ways of top down qualifying of candidates

How about pre-qualifying candidates from the bottom up? This gets and hopefully keeps the roots active. We need to keep people INTERESTED in the process so hopefully they remain ACTIVE. I think giving them a very direct stake in the process is a key element in this.

 

[osan]

I'm on the same page.

I really just wanted to keep plugging away at really solid Ron Paul candidates. Going out on a limb for Rand was a unique case.

It's a waste of time and resources to be supporting candidates that are not loyal.

It's also likely to get you bit and we end up funding the next George Bush who said he likes a humble foreign policy and no nation building.

These guys are flat out liars, so we need to get them on the record as liars. Make them lie and fit our mold and our principles, they'll do it. Then we can call them out and say look at these strict promises you broke. Shame them out the next election.

If we allow them to wiggle, they're going to do it.

Question on point of legality: could we enter into a formal contract with those candidates whom we choose to materially support that contains language saying that if they breach (break promises, etc.) that we can call for them to resign and they would have to announce within, say, 48 hours or end up in court? It would seem this would be agin' the law, but I'm ignorant on such issues. If it is not agin' the law, this could become an enormously powerful stick with which to keep our boys on the straight an narrow.

 

[MRoCkEd]

I really just wanted to keep plugging away at really solid Ron Paul candidates.

Obviously that's the top priority. But say we only find five viable Ron Paul clones. Could we support honest candidates with very libertarian views who aren't quite with us on everything?

 

[osan]

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.

Your points are well taken, but a little patience is in order. We've been at it only a couple of days. Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

[JoshLowry]

Obviously that's the top priority. But say we only find five viable Ron Paul clones. Could we support honest candidates with very libertarian views who aren't quite with us on everything?

There is a line, but I don't like some of the rhetoric that we should ease up on non-interventionism. That should be a solid part of this PAC. Zero tolerance on this issue for candidates.

If we can only support 5 this year, then fantastic! Obviously the tide is changing for liberty candidates. We just celebrated our biggest victories and I feel like we're going the opposite way. If anything, we should be standing even taller right now. Four years from now we will have to wade through liberty candidates.

I don't see a future of our PAC having too much money and not enough solid liberty candidates. I think that's a bad reason to endorse someone that has the potential to be more of the same.

 

[osan]

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.

Agreed on iCaucus model. No need to reinvent the wheel. Take what is there, analyze it, tweak where needed to best suit our needs, and go forward.

IS there a document outlining this model? It would be good to see the structure and then, if it looks right at that level, start taking it apart to see if the innards will do what we need.

The one thing I want to reiterate on pain of driving you all mad is that we should endeavor to get the roots interested and active. Also, and I don't want to jump any guns here but want to put it out there - I am wondering if the leadership should be as cellular as possible in order to make the organization hard to target. Yes we have a board, but much of the decision making is done on the ground. Opinions?

 

[forsmant]

Then this issue of non interventionism will probably not come up until the PAC is able to contribute to at least 15 to 20 candidates. Non interventionism is not something we should compromise on early on or at all. I would just like that to not be a focus of state candidates. But if it is all the better.

 

[osan]

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

THis is good, but there would still be a set of fundamentals with those three categories and a set of "nice to haves" with those categories. The nice to haves comprise less critical issues, but issues we believe we can educate the candidate on in time. I doubt we will find much attraction in many who will be hard-ass opposed to listening to reason on issues where we differ in philosophy. IMO much of these sorts of relations will be pretty much self-correcting.

 

[osan]

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.

As Eek the Cat would say, cumbaya! Can this still be done? Could you explain further? I've heard of this before, but have yet to explore what it really is. We do need to have their balls in vises. I like big machinist vises with knurled jaws, but they are very heavy and tend to make travel rather a challenge.

 

[osan]

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.

This is a very big statement. I must therefore ask upon what facts you base the conclusion? Not trying to fuck with you... well, OK, I suppose I am.

Seriously, your statement appears to imply that there is no well spring of potential candidates that would pass this test. I cannot agree nor disagree. I see no sufficient basis for reaching this conclusion and would like to be enlightened.

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?

Pat Buchanan? Are you serious? I don't know enough about the others to say one way or the other. But what I can tell you is that if I knew enough about them, I would be able to tell you in a heartbeat whether I would support them, personally.

I think nayjevin is on to something here:

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.

These are way too specific. It would be EASY for any candidate who knew what it was we were looking for to say what we wanted to hear without lying or revealing ANYTHING about himself. That is why the questions must address PRINCIPLES. All but perhaps the most pathological liars tend to give themselves away in the small details at the very least. It is part of the human cognitive makeup to want and need to say what is really on their minds. I see this in action every day. Because of this, most people will give their true positions away, especially in repeated questioning. Why do you think cops interrogate people over and over again, asking the same stoopid questions? Bring the prospects to social events where the food and wine are good. Observe them. Anyone refusing to drink is immediately suspect because they may be too much on guard. It is just something to take note of, not cart him away to the gulag over, so don't over-react.

Give them plenty of opportunities to speak. If there is fail somewhere in there, eagle-eyed witnesses will find it in most cases. If they cast about too much for an answer, that is a DEAD giveaway that they may be being deceitful. Of course, it could also be nerves, so we have to be circumspect, especially in the beginning. Another reason to give them plenty of occasion to talk at social functions. Keep a guy around for a couple of months, talking often and you are almost guaranteed to see what is really beneath the surface.

 

[osan]

Obviously that's the top priority. But say we only find five viable Ron Paul clones. Could we support honest candidates with very libertarian views who aren't quite with us on everything?

Of course, so long as they stay above a threshold of agreement.

 

[osan]

There is a line, but I don't like some of the rhetoric that we should ease up on non-interventionism. That should be a solid part of this PAC. Zero tolerance on this issue for candidates.

Agreed, but allow me to add that we will need to DEFINE non-intervention in very clear and complete language. We must do that with all issues so we are clear about what it is we are speaking. This is an uber-important point, so please let us not let it slip.