State Candidate PAC Principles

[forsmant]

ANy test should be in the form of essay quetions

 

[forsmant]

dissent is not an option.

 

[MRoCkEd]

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.

I guess on that point we need a working definition of non-interventionism, especially if there is zero tolerance for statewide candidates. There is a lot of area between someone who opposes invading countries based on potential future threats, and Ron Paul's true ideal of total withdrawal from everywhere and just a navy. At the very least, we need to support candidates who want to cut military spending and shift us towards less interventionism.

If we can only support 5 this year, then fantastic!

2011 will be a good test run. Ultimately though, it should be big enough to be worth the organization of 27 people filing paperwork in 27 states.

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.

The tide is changing to some extent, though I see the greatest victory for our movement as the ability to build coalitions and present platforms in a way that is more palatable to the voting public.

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.

Just to clarify, when I referenced some "wiggle room," I am absolutely not talking about candidates who are more of the same. I am talking those who share our philosophy of limited constitutional government, but may have disagreements as far as gradations of certain issues.

 

[Travlyr]

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."

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.

Yes, it can, and should be done, imo. This is where the "rubber meets the road" to maintain constitutional principles - the vise! The elected official must adhere to the Constitution or else leave office. The people have the power to call the penal bond due if violated.

A penal bond is purchased by an elected official after swearing the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and before entering upon the duties of office. Swearing the oath is a contract with the people. The penal bond is the consideration which validates that contract.
Elements of a contract.

For example, in Ohio the penal bond is set at not less than $10k, and fixed by the governor.

121.11 Bond and oath of office - blanket bonds - bond may be required of employee.

(A) Each officer whose office is created by sections 121.02, 121.04, and 121.05 of the Revised Code, before entering upon the duties of office, shall take and subscribe an oath of office as provided by law and give bond, conditioned according to law, with security to be approved by the governor in the penal sum, not less than ten thousand dollars, fixed by the governor. The department of administrative services may procure from any duly authorized corporate surety a blanket bond covering the officers described in those sections and any other officers the governor designates. The bond and oath of the officers described in those sections shall be filed in the office of the secretary of state.

Again, this requirement is in both the U.S. Constitution and in the State Constitution.
The way I understand it, if the elected official violates his/her sworn oath of office, then a citizen may call the bond due effectively removing the official's authority.

 

[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...

Notes on Principles and policy attached. I would add to policy the absolute requirement for candidates to take out a penal bond. No compromising on that. It is called putting one's money where their mouths are.

 

[Travlyr]

The penal bond...

The reason I posted this penal bond issue here in the State Candidate PAC Principles forum is because this is a principled position that I encourage the PAC use to validate candidates. The penal bond is not optional. It is just ignored.

Politicians ignore this requirement. Courts ignore this requirement. The people ignore this requirement. We'll soon see if Supreme Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor and President Barack Obama ignore it. I'm guessing they will.

There is virtually no support for upholding this requirement across the land, and even here at RPF's there seems to be little interest in holding politician's feet to the fire.
Nonetheless, Kenneth Gomez, like Ron Paul, is willing to stand-up on principles. I applaud his courage.

 

[osan]

There is virtually no support for upholding this requirement across the land, and even here at RPF's there seems to be little interest in holding politician's feet to the fire.
Nonetheless, Kenneth Gomez, like Ron Paul, is willing to stand-up on principles. I applaud his courage.

I support the idea fully. Question in my mind: how effective are they? What is the burden of proof thta the office holder has breached his pledge?

 

[Travlyr]

I support the idea fully. Question in my mind: how effective are they? What is the burden of proof thta the office holder has breached his pledge?

This is a very good question. Effective? It could be very effective, imo. But there is, not yet, much interest or support. However, there are cases where judges have been dismissed for failure to purchase the penal bond and his court decisions rendered invalid.

I understand that precedent has been set, but, at the moment, I do not have any links to share.

 

[DirtMcGirt]

It would add more candidate research and probably ruffle some feathers but should we go out of our way the first few years and find at least one member from each party to donate to...This could show our platform and logic is not owned by one political party. Also, this would be an easy way to get some publicity for our PAC...

 

[Imperial]

As far as supporting more people than just Republicans, we have two options. We can go for libertarian-y Democrats or we could support a few Constitution or Libertarian Party candidates and Independents. Although most third partiers have no chance, there are always a few every cycle who really campaign hard and make a splash but are simply outspent.

I do think one easy litmus test issue is medicinal marijuana. While legalized marijuana would have a hard fight in many state legislatures and would be political suicide for some politicians in certain states, medicinal marijuana is much easier for conservatives to jump onboard.