Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 07:41:53 -0700
From: auvenj@mailcity.com ("Jason Auvenshine")
Subject: [lpaz-Pima] Re: Fw: The 'Arizona Problem'?
To: ernesthancock@inficad.com ("Ernest Hancock")
Reply-To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com
Ernie,
If someone just was after the clean election money, couldn't they simply run as an independant? They'd have the petitioning to do in addition to the initial fundraising, but that would seem far easier than the endless court battles AND efforts for ballot status for the Libertarian Party. Or better yet, such an individual could co-opt another small party far more amenable to taking the money than the Libertarians, like the Green Party or the Reform Party. It seems to me that the "Tucson-city-matching-funds-voter-registration-drive" setup would work for those parties just as well as it does for the Libertarian party, and no one in those parties would bitch about it.
Please pardon me if I'm displaying some kind of gross ignorance here. The details of the collectivist political welfare schemes (A.K.A. "city matching funds" and "clean election funds") aren't my strong suit. :-)
My point is this: I often hear the sentiment expressed, if not the outright accusation made, that certain elements from Tucson just want to use the Libertarian party as a vehicle to personally feed at the tit of the state. Such an accusation is inconsistent with both my personal observation of the individuals involved and my understanding of what the easiest way to "feed" would be, f the desire to do so actually existed. It seems to me that people who are after unearned wealth are inherently lazy and are apt to take the easiest path to such wealth that they can find. The Libertarian Party is clearly NOT such an easy path compared to others that are available.
I am as opposed to the existance of the political welfare schemes as you are, and I am nearly as opposed to any participation in them --the difference being that I am willing to work with people who participate despite my disagreement, whereas my impression is that you are not willing to do so. However, it seems to me that you have turned a very legitimate strategic disagreement into a character assination, which in this case is both unfounded and counterproductive.
--Jason Auvenshine
http://auvenj.homepage.com
On Sun, 20 May 2001 01:27:55
Ernest Hancock wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ernest Hancock
>To: John Famularo
>Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 1:27 AM
>Subject: The 'Arizona Problem'?
>
>
>John,
>
>The way it looks at national it would seem that Arizona is in the best situation of all of the states. We have insulated ourselves from the inevitable demise of the idea that the NLP is the "Party of Principle". But, when there are easy millions to be made you can count on the worst sort to show up.
>
>Arizona is in a situation that it may not be able to cleanly escape, but we have made our positions so clear to all involved (interested individuals around the country, Arizona residents & media, government officials, etc) that whatever actions we take or do not take will be seen as consistent with past actions.
>
>Our potential problem this election cycle is the whole libertarian movement's problem in a nut shell,... I'll explain.
>
>Arizona has also been caught up in the effort across the country to open party primaries to all voters not affiliated with ballot status parties. I argued all the way to the 9th circuit the unconstitutionality of the State of Arizona using an independent's tax money to fund a primarythat no independent was allowed to vote in,... especially when the result of that primary would determine the candidates left available to be voted for in the general election. But my calim for relief was to have the Arizona State and U.S. Constitutions followed by pulling all monies for the funding and control of the internal functions of private organizations known as political parties. Arizona's constitution is clear about there being a primary to whittle down the number of candidates for the general election but has no mention of parties, and sure as hell not the subsidy of them.
>
>The worst solution to this 'Taxation without Representation' in regards to primary elections is to force political parties, that have asked the king for permission to have their names printed on the ballot, to now have non-party members to vote in their internal elections to select their standard bearers. In Arizona we have over 350,000 voters that can now vote in the primary of only 15,000 registered Libertarians in our primry election to select who best represents our philosophy.
>
>At about the same time the "Clean Election Act" in Arizona was passed by the voters (an initiative supported by the state's leading collectivist). This act allows millions and millions of dollars in political welfare (look for the rats boarding the ship). All state races,... (the City of Tucson has already an installed system of political welfare that has already addicted some _registered_ libertarians) all state races have public monies promised o those that will take only individual and public money (no PACs,... at least unless individually given by the members of a group :) Example: The race for Arizona governor requires only $20,000 in $5 contributions (now see why the bad guys need the database :) for _each_ candidate for governor (could be three from the libertarian party alone) to get $300,000. The winner gets an additional $600,000 the day after the primary. This $920,000 (we'll round it off to an even million for giggles) is just one statewide race. The New Alliance
party made a fortune out of looping more and more money through their presidential campaigns to the point that Fulani had more money that all seven Democratic candidates combined in the '92 presidential election with 50 state ballot status while they were fighting it out in New Hampshire and got ZERO press,... and likely didn't care that much since they were making themselves so much money.
>
>Whenever I hear about how the need to _professionalize_ the party outweighs the need to maintain the notio that our power comes from being the "Party of Principle", I know what their real goal is. The national party is already dead. The national membership is likely already comprised of far more people that are not registered libertarian in their states. Here in Arizona where we enjoy great notoriety and respect we still only had 36% of the national members with Arizona addresses that were accually registered Libertarians (everyone should ask for their state numbers).
>
>The Political Welfare addicts are looking for their next fixes and Arizona has easy money begging to be taken. All addresses on the LNC's databases can expect letters from Arizona requesting money to feed the beast that will consume us. Our only hope is a strong ruling in our latest lawsuit that will free our state party from unconstitutional controls from the government that forces us to allow candidates to use our good name while accepting this money. We'll see. But I wouldn't put my hopes on the ruling to be strong enough to allow us the power to set our own criteria for standard bearers,... pity,... and unconstitutional.
>
>So you can see why ballot status for Arizona in 2002 can be seen by some as an ironic blow to freedom. But those concerned about Arizona getting ballot status in 2002 needn't worry, others have well over a million reasons to make sure that we get it.
>
>Ernest Hancock
>Arizona Libertarian Freedom Activist
>This year's freedom event www.freedomsummit.com
>
>Permission to forward unchanged granted (you can always correct my spelling for me :)
>
Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpaz-pima-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/