From: "Alan Fanning" <apfanning@psn.net>
Jason,
To my understanding there are concrete objections to the implementation of a provision to withhold party support from anyone accepting matching funds. In at least two elections - the primary race for governor and the LP affiliate election - there were arguably fraudulent claims made by one side supported by the Pima faction, using party money in a way that the opposition could not match. The party expenses would have to be controlled by individuals EVERYONE trusts. After all this time there can't be very many people that fit that bill. Frequent audits would have to be made to insure everything is on the up and up.
The claim has been made that funds accrued for specific races were diverted for party building. There has to be a firewall between the party treasury and each campaign. Even then it comes back to trust.
My preference would be that in order to qualify for a ALP ballot position, the candidate must foreswear accepting tax funding. The voluntary tax warrant money is a different story and could be handled the way the ALP has in the past, but explicitly stating in the Bylaws that this is how these and other benefits are to be disbursed - including making the voters lists available to other parties.
In the end the issue cannot be what litmus test is used for membership - but which candidates are allowed to run under the Libertarian Party banner. New members can not be expected to understand the nuances of this argument, however when we choose a candidate, we should be confident that he or she does.
This goes back to the INITIATION of force or fraud argument. To actively seek to receive stolen goods in the form of matching funds, is to become an accessory after the fact to plunder. This is not the same as using other tax funded resources like roads, but equivalent to petitioning the state to obtain special educational services for your child not otherwise available to other parents.
Libertarians have been debating this issue for at least 20 years. Using government coercion to gain POLITICAL advantage is uniquely divisive. The abortion issue is the only other equivalent issue that gives us fits. Lets put this one behind us and go on to something more useful.
Alan Fanning
-----Original Message----- From: Jason Auvenshine [mailto:auvenj@mailcity.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2000 6:27 PM To: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] ALP Convention and the lpaz-discuss list
From: "Jason Auvenshine" <auvenj@mailcity.com>
On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 17:16:14 Mike Dugger wrote:
>The VERY serious hole in your example above is best illstrated as
follows:
>
>Candidate A supports and accepts matching funds. He/she also
supports
>drug prohibition, the death penalty for women who have abortions and,
>just for the hell of it, abolishing the Second Amendment. However,
>he/she is very good at publishing pamphlets which advocate reducing
>the size and scope of government, return to our Constitution etc.
>
>Candidate B supports the Libertarian platform to a tee and prefers
>to lead by example by refusing to get on the welfare line and accept
>matching funds.
>
>Which candidate will have the most resources available to reach
>potential primary voters and drum up support?
Two counterpoints: (1) We don't know which candidate will have more resources. Matching funds are just that, MATCHING. There is also a significant "entry hurdle". If the unprincipled person can't drum up the initial support necessary, they won't qualify at all, and even if they do qualify their funding will still be proportional to their support. FWIW As I understand it the only reason those here in Tucson who have qualified for matching funds were able to do so was because Peter Schmerl's side of the PARTY stepped in and drummed up the initial support. As others have pointed out, matching funds also come with their own restrictions and compliance requirements which drain resources and divert them from more productive uses. (2) You assume resources automatically produce votes and support. If that is the case, we should all just give up and find something else to do, because we will never have the same level of resources as the D's and R's do. I would like to think an underfunded but principled candidate has a good chance against a well-funded but hollow candidate in the "party of principle". If not, what does that say about us as individuals?
That said, I will concede that in certain circumstances a candidate who takes matching funds may have an advantage over one who does not. But isn't this better handled by an "education campaign" among party members than an outright ban on any candidate who takes matching funds?
--Jason Auvenshine