This week Senator Rand Paul (RLC-KY) sent out a lengthy letter urging Republicans to sign a petition to Congress on behalf of the National Right to Work Committee in support of the National Right to Work Act which is being considered in the Senate. The email was almost bizarrely long, but I think I can summarize the idea in a few short words. The act would protect workers from being forced against their will to join unions and pay inflated dues which often support political causes they personally oppose.

Those of you familiar with the traditions of the Republican Party – the traditions which the Republican Liberty Caucus wants to restore – know that a cornerstone since the founding of the party has been the idea of free labor. That workers should have the right to choose where they work and to change jobs without coercion from government, employers or unions. This includes the right to join a union, but also the right not to join a union if they prefer not to. It includes equal access to employment for which they are qualified, but also the right of employers to make their own decisions on their own criteria for hiring. Just as we need free markets in goods and services a free society demands a free market in labor.

The text of the petition reads:

Whereas: Federal law permits Big Labor to confiscate $8 billion from American workers’ paychecks every year just to get or keep a job;

Whereas: This forced unionism breeds violent strikes and a hate-the-boss mentality which drive good jobs overseas, jack up prices and risk re-igniting inflation:

Whereas: Union bosses use this forced-dues fortune to corrupt our political system with over a billion dollars every election cycle;

Whereas: Union-puppet politicians routinely vote for higher taxes, bailouts, job-killing bureaucracy and even more porkbarrel spending keeping our nation locked in recession;

Therefore: I urge you in the strongest possible terms to strike a blow for freedom and American prosperity by co-sponsoring and casting your every vote in favor the National Right to Work Act.

Please help support our work to bring our government under control and restore our liberties by donating using the PayPal link below. You can also join the RLC to become part of our network of member-activists. To make a recurring monthly donation try this link: Enter the maximum amount to pay each month: $ USD Sign up for

The bill is authored by Jim DeMint (RLC-NC) and co-sponsored by all of the RLC endorsees in the Senate. Information and the actual text of the act can be found on OpenCongress.org.

I want to encourage all RLC members and supporters to sign the petition and support this effort. Protecting the rights of workers and employers against the increasingly abusive force of unions is the best way to strike a blow at the heart of the progressive agenda promoted by the Obama administration.

You can find the petition on the NRTW Site. And don’t forget to make a donation to the RLC while you’re here (see links to the right). We need your support to keep aggressively promoting pro-liberty and smaller government legislation like this.

In Kentucky’s Republican gubernatorial primary, RLC endorsed insurgent candidate Phil Moffett, despite performing better than expected, wasn’t able to beat his establishment opponent, State Senate President, David Williams. Upon first glance at the results with 70% of precincts reporting and Moffett down by about 7%, I was wondering where the vaunted Kentucky tea party network that propelled Senator Paul into office was. I was actually on the phone with RLC Chairman Dave Nalle earlier when I went to my favorite source, Twitter, and did a #KYGov search to find the aforementioned information. Looking at what I unearthed, I said to Dave, “I’m honestly stunned that anyone who voted for Paul wouldn’t also vote for Moffett”. After further researching the dynamics however, it turns out there were various factors at play that made for very different races, despite the candidate’s similar ideology and being the tea party insurgents pitted against the establishment.

In fact, one of the first articles I came across when I googled Phil Moffett, directly answered the question I had rhetorically posed to Dave. “Why Phil Moffett Is Not Rand Paul”, written by Kevin Brennan at The National Journal, provided immense clarification regarding their differences.

The first issue, and one that is always central in any race, was Moffett’s problem with name recognition. Despite marketing himself as Senator Paul’s heir apparent, there’s no doubt that Ron Paul’s network is what initially provided his son with momentum. That, of course, leads into Moffett’s second problem; fundraising – with which the elder Paul also aided his son greatly. Williams ultimately outspent Moffett 10-1, which speaks volumes about Moffett’s lack of traction in the cash procurement arena. Additionally, Moffett wasn’t able to capture Paul’s official endorsement, because Williams also supported Paul against Grayson in 2010.

Rand Paul’s national network, combined with media fueled fervor over whether the Senate would be turned over to the Republicans, was also undoubtedly an advantage for him that Moffett lacked. Although Moffett’s campaign and allies such as Western Representation PAC tried to pitch the storyline that Moffett’s campaign had a national impact because this GOP primary was the only one in 2011 in which the victor would face off with a pro Obama, Democrat incumbent Governor, creating national fervor in an off year over a primary that the media cares little about turned out to be nearly impossible.

Additionally, a major issue at play was the fact that there was a third dark horse choice in the primary. Jefferson County Clerk, Barbara Holsclaw, who is from Louisville just like Phil Moffett, ended up capturing 13% of the vote. She is reported to be well-liked by those who know her, but little known outside of her fairly small network. That Holsclaw and Moffett are from the same area and were both seen as outsiders, undoubtedly hurt our endorsee. In Rand Paul’s primary, it was just him, a nationally known figure with great fundraising capabilities, and the establishment candidate, former Democrat, Trey Grayson – who I believe was actually hurt by endorsements from the likes of Dick Cheney and Mitch McConnell.

Another aspect to note is the fact that Louisville is far north, right on the Indiana border. Having to compete for votes in his own hometown, and dealing with the fact that he wasn’t very well known in both the eastern and western stretches of his state were certainly a disadvantage. Moffett performed well in the Commonwealth’s two most populated counties, but was hardest hit primarily in the far eastern portions of Kentucky. When you aren’t raising enough funds, it of course makes travel difficult. Clearly, Moffett had trouble reaching some of the more off the beaten path rural areas, which make up most of eastern Kentucky.

Sadly, enthusiasm for Moffett didn’t peak, despite obvious potential. It’s possible that without Holsclaw, Moffett could have won in an upset, but unfortunately, that didn’t pan out for our anti-establishment businessman who valiantly took to the streets peddling common sense ideas. However, from an optimistic standpoint, it’s important to note that with all factors considered, Moffett actually performed well. As I noted above, Williams outspent Moffett 10-1 – yet he only won by 7 percentage points. Additionally, turnout for this primary was only at 9%. Given that Williams was the clear establishment favorite, he no doubt had somewhat of a machine, capable of turning votes out for him. As Rand Paul noted in his book, “The Tea Party Goes to Washington”, the tea party networks in Kentucky, while strong ideologically, aren’t terribly well-connected or organized – which of course tends to be the case with the movement nationally.

Considering the off year timing, relatively disorganized network of Moffett supporters, and comparatively dismal fundraising, the results were noteworthy. Certainly, liberty Republicans can learn a lesson from the failure of this campaign, and work toward building better infrastructure in the future. We need to effectively network and get out the vote for our candidates. As we move toward 2012, the Republican Liberty Caucus will certainly be on the ground, helping with just that kind of organization. Please join us!

For Immediate Release: May 17th, 2011
Contact: Dave Nalle, National Chair: (512) 656-8011 or chairman@rlc.org

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS CALLS ON CONGRESS TO HOLD THE LINE ON DEBT
Congress Should Cut Spending Now, Balance the Budget and Not Raise the Debt Ceiling

AUSTIN, TX – Ironically, on Friday the 13th, the government ran out of money.  Some numbers were juggled to buy a few months of time, but this means that this week the House of Representatives has to decide what to do about the chronic problem of spending which exceeds government income.  The easy “solution” promoted by government bureaucrats and many special interests is to raise the debt ceiling yet again, despite the fact that it already stands at $14.3 trillion. The Republican Liberty Caucus believes that the fear mongering about the debt ceiling is not justified and that we should not be bullied into taking on more debt when there are other responsible solutions that don’t merely kick the can further down the road.

Last week, the Republican Liberty Caucus board unanimously passed a resolution opposing any increase in the debt ceiling, and endorsing immediate spending reductions as a sensible solution to this crisis.  The resolution demands that Congress “shut down non-essential government programs and limit operational expenses to incoming revenue until a balanced budget can be passed.”

The resolution is accompanied by explanations of the situation for our members, and clear proposals explaining how to implement immediate spending reductions without causing a default or major crisis.  By paying debt service first and then prioritizing other spending, essential government services can be maintained.  Cutting funding to some low priority programs will buy time to implement the reductions necessary to balance spending with incoming revenue on a month to month basis until the Congress can put together a balanced budget.

“Congress hasn’t been doing its job to produce a balanced budget.   Hitting the debt ceiling ought to be a wake-up call for them,” said RLC board member Bill Westmiller.  “This may be a crisis, but it’s also an opportunity to apply immediate solutions that will bring spending under control right now and stop putting it off and making the situation worse. It’s like they’re waiting for some magical pixie to fix our budget crisis and plan to just keep spending at an ever increasing level until that magic moment comes.”

“We’re putting on a full-press to make Congress aware of our concerns. The RLC is tirelessly promoting a message of fiscal responsibility and encouraging supporters to contact their representatives. It’s time we demand that they stop mortgaging the prosperity of future generations to pay for past political deals,” said RLC Executive Secretary Corie Whalen.

“We may not win this battle, but the war to restore liberty and fiscal responsibility will go on,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “The entire House is up for reelection next year  and how they perform in this situation and what they do about balancing the budget in the next year will tell us who to support and who to oppose.  A lot of seats changed hands in 2010.  Based on the lack of fiscal responsibility shown by  congressional leaders in this situation, 2010 may have just been a preview of 2012.”

– 30 –

See the full text of the resolution at http://www.rlc.org/2011/05/17/resolution-in-opposition-to-raising-the-debt-ceiling/

Further information on this campaign can be found at http://www.rlc.org/2011/05/15/tell-congress-to-hold-the-line-on-debt/

To contact a local or national spokesperson call 512-656-8011

The Republican Liberty Caucus is a 527 political organization founded in 1991, committed to protecting the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise that once defined the Republican Party. The Caucus recruits and endorses candidates who support our agenda, works to elect limited-government Republicans to political office, and seeks to change the direction of the Republican Party to reflect members’ vision of liberty, peace and prosperity.  The RLC currently has local affiliates in more than 40 states and hundreds of endorsed office holders nationwide, including in the US House and Senate.

Last week the Republican Liberty Caucus national board voted unanimously to pass a resolution in opposition to raising the debt ceiling. You can find more information on this issue in a series of other articles on this site. The press release is part of a full campaign on this issue, including an email and phone campaign to Congress and promotion of the issue in the national press.

The text of the resolution reads:

Resolution:

WHEREAS government should tax citizens only at the minimal level necessary to fund the essential functions of government; and

WHEREAS the funding of unnecessary government spending from direct taxation and excessive debt is an assault on the natural property rights of all taxpayers and on the future liberty of our children; and

WHEREAS the national debt has tripled in the last decade and is expected to exceed 100% of Gross Domestic Product by the end of the year; and

WHEREAS Congress has raised the debt ceiling three times in the last two years; and

WHEREAS Congress has continued to raise the debt ceiling time and time again, showing no capacity for fiscal discipline or deficit reduction;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus believes:

Congress should not raise the debt ceiling in 2011. Instead, Congress should shut down non-essential government programs and limit operational expenses to incoming revenue until a balanced budget can be passed.

Recalling My Experiences Running for, Winning, and Serving As Director at Large of the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party

I make for an unlikely elected Republican officer. As an experimental and avant-garde punk rock vocalist best-known for touring the countryside singing and screaming my head off with my band Look What I Did alongside grindcore, death metal, hardcore, and punk bands on 12 full United States tours, I hardly frequent the same events as many of those in the caucus that eventually chose me to represent them in the Davidson County Republican Party. I am and always will be a lifelong member of the punk rock community, the one which has given the world so many new ideas and fostered opposition to establishments for decades.

Throughout my life, I’ve spent far more time debating against anarcho-syndicalists and their wholesale endorsement of the use of violence to destroy very real private property rights in indie record shops or at benefit shows for initiatives like Food Not Bombs. My foray into Republican politics probably started more as a form of protest than anything else, but once I got my foot in the door, it became clear that, for those interested in freedom, only the Republican Party has the appropriate organizational structure to give rise to an insurgent libertarian mainstream movement. I wasted plenty of time supporting third parties (see: discussion clubs, unfortunately, due to the unfair laws in every state that prevent third parties from competing) given that they produced all the presidential candidates I voted for prior to 2008.

After the success of Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in ’08, our local libertarian crowd had blossomed into a full-fledged movement, so we organized and decided to try to run for office in the GOP’s county board which essentially governs the platform and finances of the party. There was a spirit of protest as we are not and never were George Bush-style Republicans, but at the same time, restoring the GOP to the legacy of Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft isn’t half bad in the mind of anyone who cares about freedom. With leaders like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson on the national stage, it was clear that the Republican Party was and still is ready for libertarian influence.

Running for Office

Matt Collins, known as “The Collins” among many in the liberty movement, was preparing a run for chair of the Davidson County Republican Party. He asked if anyone would be willing to serve on the board if he were to be elected as there was a possible but unlikely outcome where the chair appoints the board. At this point, I presumed this outcome would not occur, but few people seemed to be willing to step up to take on this challenge, so, being the risk-taker that I am, I agreed.

I attended Republican events to begin this process. I started off by largely just being quiet and being seen. I dressed as nicely as I could, which is difficult for me as I am used to being able to wear obliterated jeans and ratty T-shirts everywhere in my daily life. However, taking the time to dress respectably does prevent political insiders from making huge assumptions about you.

I feverishly studied Republican political rhetoric. I learned exactly why the seasoned activists who got their start in Young Americans for Freedom went wild at Goldwater’s call for “extremism in the pursuit of liberty” against the then establishment-Republicanism of Nelson Rockefeller in 1964. I pored over the speeches written by Pat Buchanan that made so many sitting US presidents look like anti-establishment rebels. The respect for things Republican-past paid off as many of those old Goldwater faithfuls became fast allies of the insurgent libertarian Republicans. They had been fighting against the centralization of power in the party structure for decades, and, to them, we seemed like the reinforcements.

Winning Has Its Complications

After two controversial and hotly contested conventions, Matt Collins won the first Vice Chair position, and many of the rest of us were elected to our respected positions from the floor. I was able to secure enough votes to be declared the Director at Large of the Davidson County Republican Party. I hadn’t expected to win, so when the news was announced to the couple hundred bona fide Republicans, I was deeply shocked.

What now? I was elected to do a job, so it was time to learn how to do it. For those who may be thrown into the same position, here are a few things I learned:

• • Be friends with everyone. Political differences are best when debated politely and in the right context. Even if you feel someone has political views that cause harm to others, it is important to realize that your only hope of changing their mind is found in friendship.
• • Just because someone voted for an establishment Republican in the past or was in favor of the Iraq War does not mean they are a “neoconservative.” Neoconservatism has a specific definition, and, by applying it liberally to anyone who endorsed the Iraq War in those confusing and heated moments of emotion after 911 creates more neocons than it destroys. People in local politics do not get phone calls from the Bilderberg Group or the Council on Foreign Relations, so there is no reason to make a conspiracy out of everything and start calling people names. I thought the war was a mistake back then too, but nobody’s perfect and blame won’t make friends or stop the next war from happening.
• • Choose your battles, and make sure you have the political capital to win them. It’s one thing to vote your conscience and your principles, which I would absolutely encourage, but initiating motions or pushing for resolutions should be done in a focused manner. Pick around three major issues to focus on, and then spend the rest of the time highlighting where you agree.
• • Spend the first few months observing and saying as little as possible. Watch for who is friends with whom, and which caucus influences which elected officials. This information will prove useful.
• • Do the job you were elected to do. If you run for party leadership, then your job is to increase the party’s power. Obviously you don’t want to spend your time doing things that disagree with your principles, so just don’t show up to those events. It is a volunteer type of thing, so you can just withdraw consent from certain types of functions. I received plenty of emails to attend functions that were totally outside of my principles, and I did not go to those.
• • Use the “Reagan Card” when necessary. The Reagan Card is any quote or reference from Ronald Reagan which affirms your point. In Republican politics, this functions somewhat metaphorically like a stun grenade that silences opposing arguments.

The Takeaway

Ultimately, I became friends with a lot of people that I initially thought would try to drive me out of the party. Those who were at first decried as establishment neocons by people I knew were later working on the campaign for our first higher-profile local libertarian-Republican candidate, Dr. Steve Dickerson. As a fiscal conservative who is an anesthesiologist with unconventional positions such as being in favor of gay adoptions, he was an absolutely solid candidate that deserved the hard work I put in to help.

When we were planning the Republican picnic, I noticed that our straw poll was missing a noteworthy potential candidate named Dr. Ron Paul. I reminded the board that Ron Paul supporters would attend the picnic and donate money to attempt to win the straw poll, which the party would then have. Seconds later Dr. Paul was added to the straw poll. That meeting barely had a quorum, so no one else probably would have offered his name that day.

Given the difficulties we experienced when Matt Collins was voted out of the party for making comments about Zach Wamp during the primary season, I would ultimately suggest that friendly and cooperatively-spirited activists should work inside the party while more protest-oriented activists work outside. This is not to say that Matt Collins’ activism was ineffective. I think he is one of the most successful advocates for pure freedom in Tennessee, but from the inside, you can change minds, so that is an important opportunity to take advantage of by engaging in friendly discourse.

The Rand Paul style rhetoric works great inside the party, and that type of thing is what most GOP faithful want to hear. For example, if you believe that the War on Drugs is not only a failure but a moral crisis deserving repeal, it might be best to describe those views by saying that you would prefer policies that are “tough on violent and property crime.” The GOP electorate likes tough political rhetoric, and, when you are advocating for the cancellation of a policy, it is best to describe it in terms that sound like an increase in value to the taxpayer.

So, looking back on my successful and now-complete two-year term as Director at Large of the Davidson County Republican Party, I feel like I understand much better than most why the South Carolina GOP debate audience cheered an end to the wars and the War on Drugs. It is because, behind the scenes, people like myself and others have been hanging out with Republicans and changing their minds.

I got to write speeches for candidates. I helped initiate a set of morning breakfast events called “Eggs and Bacon” Summits with State Executive Committeewoman Beth Campbell and former Metro councilman Rod Williams, both of whom I now consider great friends. The state party chair Chris Devaney personally complimented me on those summits, and other counties began to copy our formula. Nearly every Middle Tennessee Republican politician spoke at those events that I helped start, including current governor Bill Haslam. Ultimately, I wanted Nashvillians to be able to talk to these candidates so they could make an informed decision, but by having a hand in creating them, I gained a lot of credibility in the party, and my views were thusly considered to be a part of the “big tent.”

I made lots of great friends across many ideological divides, certainly too many to name here, and, in the end, the experience was worthwhile and valuable for liberty. I would encourage others to follow suit. I did not choose to run again as I have become busy both with playing music and starting a new online and mobile music service called gazzmic which is now in the developmental stages. This is a personal side note, as I had intended to run for city council in Nashville in 2011, but, given that I have an opportunity to create private sector jobs during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, I think it would be more productive to focus on that than to try and run to create a single government job for myself.  However, I will only be postponing my campaign, as I still intend to run for Metro Council in 2015 when I have more time.

In conclusion, to those who want to join the Republican Party for the express purpose of driving it back to the true roots of freedom, the Constitution, fear not! If I can do it, a punk-rocker with nothing socially in common with the stereotypical Republican, anyone can. It just takes an open mind, a friendly attitude, and careful attention to political rhetoric and technique. We will have liberty in our lifetime.

As a consumer you know that you can’t spend money without any limit and take on endless credit without eventually getting in over your head. Congress doesn’t seem to understand this. They’re getting ready to raise the Debt Ceiling and write themselves another blank check. The problem is that when they run up debt we pay the price and it gets passed on with interest to our kids and their kids.

As a nation we’re in well over our heads and this is not the time to take on more debt. We don’t have to raise the debt ceiling and despite the fearmongering holding the line on debt will not lead to default or disaster or other negative consequences. All we have to do is make the cuts our government can easily afford as we go. Government revenue will keep coming in at more than 85% of what they want to spend and all they have to do is limit their spending to that level, paying interest on the debt first so we don’t hurt our credit rating. It just takes a little leadership with some backbone.

We urge you to write or call your Senators and Representatives to encourage them to vote against raising the debt ceiling. You can copy and paste the text below and send that to them, or modify it or replace it with your own thoughts. Use the link at the end to find the addresses to email or to get the phone number for their offices.

Dear Senator/Representative X:

I want our government to live within its means the same way that I have to. It doesn’t make any sense to spend more than it takes in through tax and other revenues. Just adding on more debt isn’t the answer and will lead to a ballooning debt which will become harder and harder to pay back. Government needs to tighten its belt the same way that citizens are with fewer jobs and higher prices.

Please. Instead of raising the debt ceiling, take the lead among your colleagues in calling for immediate ongoing spending reductions to keep spending within the limits of available revenue. Pay the service on the debt first, then necessary entitlements like medicare and social security and then prioritize the rest of the spending based on real need. There are so many things which government does which we can live without or do ourselves or through our state governments, it shouldn’t be hard to find places to save. You might start by looking at our current overseas wars, agricultural subsidies and the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security and Commerce.

The days of irresponsible government in this country have to be over. The people want less government, not more, and we are no longer willing to pay such a high price for services we never asked for. We want a return to Thomas Jefferson’s idea of “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

I hope I can count on you to justify my past and future support by taking the lead in holding the line on debt and putting our government back on the right track.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

Just click on this link to find contact info for your representatives.

Scrutiny of the Koch brothers has intensified since they were connected to the battle over public sector unionism in Wisconsin.  The latest incarnation of the “two minutes of hate” directed at the Koch brothers has taken place at my alma mater, Florida State University.  As DeVoe Moore professor of economics (and RLC Advisory Board member) Dr. Randall Holcombe explains at his blog, the knee-jerk reactions are severely overblown and unwarranted:

The Koch Brothers’ Philanthropy and Academic Freedom

Writer Brendan Behan once remarked, “There’s no bad publicity except an obituary.”  I am an economics professor at Florida State University (FSU), and my department has been getting lots of publicity this week.

Our run in the spotlight started with an op-ed on May 1 in the local newspaper, The Tallahassee Democrat, in which the writers were criticizing a grant my department received from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation because, the writers argued, we gave up our academic freedom to get the money.  The story was picked up by the St. Petersburg Times, and seems to have gone viral after that.  I could pick and choose a few links to share, but when I just Googled “Florida State University economics Koch” Google returned 211,000 results.  You can see for yourself what people are saying.

I don’t object to the investigative reporting that is being done on this issue.  As a government-run institution, I am happy to have our activities scrutinized and for the press to inquire into our funding sources, and how we are spending our money.  In this case, however, I think the press coverage has distorted the facts.

The money from the Koch Foundation was intended to fund faculty positions, to provide money for graduate student stipends, and to fund some undergraduate programs.  All of the negative publicity has been with regard to the faculty positions.  The contract with the Koch Foundation says that a committee that includes a representative from the Foundation will screen and approve any hires on that money, that the Foundation will get annual reports on the activities it funds, and that it can withdraw its support at any time if it is dissatisfied.  The money is coming as annual grants to support one year’s spending.  None is going into an endowment.  FSU is being criticized for allowing the Koch Foundation to have a say in who we hire.

Here are some facts about our accepting this money.  We recognized at the outset that we didn’t want an outside organization telling us who we could hire, and agreed we would only take the money if the Foundation agreed to support candidates we wanted to hire.  If there were no mutually acceptable candidates, we would not take the money.

Further, if you look at the three faculty we added with the Koch money, only one of them actually went through the screening process described above.  In two out of the three hires, we identified a candidate we wanted to hire without any Koch Foundation screening, we presented the candidate to Koch, and they said they would fund the hire.  They aren’t telling us who we can or cannot hire.  If the Koch Foundation turned down a candidate we wanted (and, they have turned down none of our suggestions), we could always hire them with our own money (which means, money taken from Florida’s taxpayers).

The university also agreed that if during the grant period the Koch Foundation decided to withdraw its annual appropriation to support those hires, the university would fund the positions.  The Koch Foundation could not determine who we hired, or whether someone would be terminated.  They could only determine whether they would pay for a hire.

This seems reasonable to me.  More than a decade ago I wrote a book (which is for sale through the Independent Institute) describing the way that philanthropic donations often end up supporting causes that the donor would have found abhorrent.  Donors always make donations with the intent of furthering ends with which they agree, whether it is funding cancer research, or supporting a symphony orchestra… or the teaching of the virtues of the market system in an economics department.  Once the money is given, especially if it is in the form of a bequest, or goes into an endowment, there is always the risk that the money will be spent for things which the donor would not approve.

In our grant from the Koch Foundation, they protected their interests both by only agreeing to provide the money if it was spent on something we saw as our mutual interest, and by having the right to stop their payments to us if they were dissatisfied with how they were using them.  On our end, we protected our interests by agreeing (within our department) that we would only hire on those lines if the candidates were people we would have chosen anyway, and (as a guarantee from our university administration) that if the Foundation did withdraw their funding mid-way through the contract, the university would fund those positions.  Does this constitute giving up our academic freedom?

In addition to being able to hire three faculty in tight budgetary times—at no taxpayer expense—we are also supporting several graduate students and undergraduate programs with money from the Koch Foundation.  Nobody in the department objects to the hires we made, and we are happy to have the financial support for our students.  But, understandably, there are some faculty who are upset about the negative publicity the Koch money has brought us.

Perhaps one source of hostility toward this agreement stems from the fact that Charles Koch is well-known for supporting libertarian causes, and the publicity is intended as an attack on Koch.  As a faculty member in the Florida State University economics department, I may be too close to the situation to give an objective judgment.  The agreement was signed and the Koch money began coming to our department in 2009, and after two quiet years, all of a sudden this week the subject is getting a lot of press.

Source: Holcombe, Randall G., “Philanthropy and Academic Freedom at Florida State University.” The Beacon Blog, May 12, 2011.

As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.

Their behind-the-scenes financial support — about $1 million in donations, delivered in recent weeks to a new coalition of gay rights organizations — could alter the political calculus of Albany lawmakers, especially the Republican state senators in whose hands the fate of gay marriage rests.

The donors represent some of New York’s wealthiest and most politically active figures and include Paul E. Singer, a hedge fund manager and top-tier Republican donor, as well as two other financiers, Steven A. Cohen and Clifford S. Asness.

At the same time, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a billionaire businessman and philanthropist who has been a major contributor to Senate Republicans in New York, plans a significant push for same-sex marriage: giving at least $100,000 of his own money, hosting a fund-raiser at an Upper East Side town house, traveling to Albany to lobby lawmakers and giving a speech on the issue.

The new donations represent roughly two-thirds of the same-sex marriage coalition’s fund-raising, making New York the rare state where a lobbying campaign in favor of legalizing gay unions is not being financed primarily by liberal donors and Democrats. The support is likely to jolt the traditional financial and political backers of gay rights causes, who now find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being outraised and outspent in New York.

The donations are financing an intensive campaign of television advertisements and grass-roots activism coordinated by New Yorkers United for Marriage, a group of same-sex marriage advocates. The campaign is aimed chiefly at persuading several members of the Senate Republican majority to join most Senate Democrats in backing same-sex marriage, which was defeated in the Senate in 2009. The State Assembly, controlled by Democrats, has repeatedly passed same-sex marriage bills.

The newly recruited donors argue that permitting same-sex marriage is consistent with conservative principles of personal liberty and small government.

“I’m a pretty straight-down-the-line small-government guy,” said Mr. Asness, who described himself as a libertarian who favored less government intrusion in both markets and personal affairs. Mr. Asness, a frequent Republican donor, has praised Tea Party activists on his blog and last year attended a conference of right-leaning donors held by Charles and David Koch, among the leading conservative philanthropists in the nation.

“This is an issue of basic freedom,” Mr. Asness said. Some of those involved have made what might be termed the pro-business argument for same-sex marriage, arguing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would help keep New York economically competitive.

One of the donors, Daniel S. Loeb, who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican candidates for federal office in the last two years, said he hoped to make clear to Republicans that same-sex marriage had a broad coalition of support.

“I think it is important in particular for Republicans to know this is a bipartisan issue,” Mr. Loeb said. “If they’re Republican, they will not be abandoned by the party for supporting this. On the contrary, I think they will find that there is a whole new world of people who will support them on an ongoing basis if they support this cause.”

Mr. Cohen, who runs SAC Capital Advisers and has become increasingly active in Republican fund-raising, described his views simply: “We believe in social justice for all Americans.”

The involvement of Mr. Singer is the most striking, given his devotion to conservative candidates and philanthropy: He is chairman of the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning research group, and one of the most generous Republican donors in the country. But he also has a personal stake in the issue: he has a gay son who married his partner in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal.

Mr. Singer is coordinating much of the Republican fund-raising for same-sex marriage in New York, according to people familiar with the matter, donating $425,000 of his own money and personally soliciting an additional $500,000 in donations. At the same time, he has hosted private meetings to make the case for legalizing gay weddings in New York to other conservatives.

Bill Smith, deputy executive director of the Gill Action Fund, a political organization that supports gay rights, called the contributions from Republican donors “a sea change.”

Some of the donors were recruited by Ken Mehlman, a contributor to the coalition and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, who has since announced that he is gay. Some of the new contributors have been active in national politics and presidential fund-raising, but are venturing into state politics for the first time. Their involvement offers Republicans in New York the prospect of help in next year’s legislative elections and a potential source of longer-term support for a party that has struggled to field well-financed candidates for statewide office in recent years.

Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican-turned-independent, is the most politically centrist of the donors. (He is not coordinating his efforts with the other contributors.)

The mayor has long supported same-sex marriage and spoke passionately about the subject in 2009, when the Legislature last tackled the topic. But his donations to state Republicans have occasionally stirred skepticism among gay rights advocates. And until now, the mayor has given little of his personal fortune to the cause — he made a $5,000 donation to the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, in 2010.

This year, his involvement has deepened considerably. Aides to Mr. Bloomberg said he viewed the marriage issue in a larger context: Freedom, he argues, is New York’s “competitive advantage” and its brand, and he has become committed to vigorously defending it, as he did amid criticism of a proposed Islamic center near ground zero.

“At the core this very rational mayor is somebody who believes that government has no business in getting involved in, taking sides in or making value judgments about who you love,” said John Feinblatt, the mayor’s chief policy adviser.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bloomberg is scheduled to travel to Albany to lobby Republican lawmakers, and on May 25, he plans to hold a high-dollar fund-raiser, featuring the singer Rufus Wainwright, to raise money for the same-sex marriage cause at the Upper East Side headquarters of his foundation. The next day, Mr. Bloomberg plans to deliver a speech on the subject at the Cooper Union.

“This is the moment,” Mr. Feinblatt said of the mayor’s involvement. “If you want your beliefs to count and your voice to count, this is the time.”

(Source: Barbaro, Michael and Nicholas Confessore, “Donors to G.O.P. Are Backing Gay Marriage Push.” New York Times, May 13, 2011.)

Below: Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is involved in the effort.

On Thursday night, the Texas House of Representatives passed the first of two bills from Representative David Simpson (R-Longview) which would criminalize TSA searches of passengers at airports without probable cause.

The key text of HB1937 reads in part:

A person who is a public servant [acting under color of his office or employment] commits an offense if the person:
(2) while acting under color of the person’s office or employment without probable cause to believe the other person committed an offense:
(A) performs a search for the purpose of granting access to a publicly accessible building or form of transportation;

The bill passed by acclamation and will move on to the Senate for consideration.

This bill had been heavily backed and promoted by the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas and the RLC of Central Texas. RLC-CTX members testified at multiple hearings, with board member Pierre de Rochemont taking the lead and providing expert scientific testimony on the dangers of the TSA scanners.

The issue of TSA scanners and enhanced pat downs has become a nationwide issue because of highly publicized incidents which brought the intrusiveness of TSA screening to the nation’s attention in recent weeks. In early April, a father videotaped a TSA agent in New Orleans running her hands all over his visibly upset 6-year-old. A few weeks later, former Miss USA Susie Castillo made a tearful video after agents touched her genitalia during a pat-down. She said she came away feeling violated. And just this week, a bystander snapped a photo of screeners in Kansas City patting down an infant.

HB1937 addresses the intrusiveness of TSA pat-down procedures, making it a crime to purposefully, knowingly or recklessly touch a person’s anus, sexual organ and breasts, even through clothing. A companion bill which addresses the danger of TSA backscatter radiation scanners is also being considered and should be voted on soon. Similar bills are being considered in a number of other state legislators with strong support from RLC chapters in those states.

RLC chapter chairmen in four states have recently weighed in on pressing issues in their states and have been published or received notoriety for their efforts:

• In Peach Pundit, Georgia RLC Chair Travis Bowden argues that a proposed shift in power violates the Georgia Constitution in “The Role of the Lt. Governor“;

• At her blog, Nebraska RLC Chair Laura Ebke opines that having both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson in the presidential race is a good idea.

• In NH Insider, New Hampshire RLC Chairman Andrew Hemingway argues that Republicans should end their typical view of government and instead adopt a new perspective;

• At RedState, Wisconsin RLC Chair Mike Murphy’s efforts to rescind a promise between Democrat and Republican incumbent politicians has been exposed as a result of his tireless work.

Our RLC state chapters are busy building momentum for electoral successes in 2012. Please get involved today!

Laura Ebke says its beneficial to have two liberty candidates in the 2012 GOP race.

Raise your hand if you support torture.