Evidence against June 13 GOP debate sponsors CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader continues to mount as they persist in excluding former two-term Republican Governor Gary Johnson from the Manchester, New Hampshire debate.

WMUR and the Union-Leader have been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned Americans, many complaining that they are embarrassing the state of New Hampshire and jeopardizing its status as a first in the nation primary state.

And now Johnson supporters recently released a video targeting CNN:

HOPE AND CHANGE

Johnson’s supporters are hosting a MoneyBomb for his campaign in conjunction with the debate, and cries for inclusion have come from different corners of the political spectrum — ranging from Willy Nelson to the gay conservative group GOProud.

Additionally, there is hope for Johnson supporters:

CNN tried to keep former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel out of the June 3, 2007 Democratic presidential debate, but his supporters flooded CNN/WMUR/Union-Leader with requests and their decision was eventually reversed. Mike Gravel was able to debate.

SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA

The specific criteria CNN and the other outlets are using to justify the exclusion of Governor Johnson also doesn’t add up. The first requirement for inclusion in CNN’s debate is that the individual be “a candidate,” but some of the invitees not only are not candidates (Michele Bachmann), but haven’t even taken a single official step toward becoming one (Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin). CNN’s own definition of a potential invitee is “a candidate”.

CNN selectively used versions of polls that included the names of spoiler non-candidates (such as Palin and Giuliani) in its listed criteria. Despite excluding other polls, Gov. Johnson does qualify for the June 13 debate under the “2.00% average of three polls in the month of May” category.

In the May 27 CNN poll, three different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidates Giuliani and Palin, one including spoiler non-candidate Palin (but not Giuliani), and one including neither Giuliani nor Palin. In the survey that did not include the two spoiler non-candidates (who, as non-candidates, were not eligible for invitations anyway, under CNN’s objective criteria), Gary Johnson earned 2%.

In the May 26 Gallup poll, two different surveys were taken: One including spoiler non-candidate Palin, and one not including spoiler non-candidate Palin. In the survey that did not include the spoiler non-candidate, Johnson earned 3%.

Finally, in the May 4 Quinnipiac poll, only one survey was taken, and Johnson earned 1%.

So the May Johnson poll results using CNN’s poll sources are: 2 + 3 + 1 divided by 3, which equals 2%. View the poll data compiled here.

A Johnson supporter explains the math for all you visual learners:

Finally, in a just-released PPP poll, Gary Johnson leads GOP contenders in favorability ratings in their home states. Johnson is supported by 44 percent of New Mexico voters.

SKETCHY FROM THE START

GOP Presidential candidate Fred Karger explains how the CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader debate has been problematic from the very beginning. Says Karger, “The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is very clear on the rules governing debates stating that, ‘The organization staging the debate must select the candidates based on pre-established objective criteria.’ CNN’s criteria is objective, but was the criteria pre-established?” The following evidence was collected by Mr. Karger:

1) Invitations were sent to Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. When were the invitations sent?

2) Were the invitations sent out on a rolling basis, rather than after the criteria period closed? Donald Trump was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 16, 2011. Mike Huckabee was invited, but he announced he would not run on May 14, 2011. Haley Barbour was not invited. Barbour met the criteria after the April 22, 2011 release of a Gallup poll. Haley Barbour announced he would not run on April 25, 2011.

3) Jon Huntsman: Jon Huntsman did not meet the polling criteria until he received 4% in the UNH poll, which was released on May 23, 2011 at 5pm (pdf). Jon Huntsman announced he would not participate in the debate on May 27, 2011. In the three full days between 5pm May 23, 2011 and May 27, 2011, Jon Huntsman would have needed to receive an invitation from the debate sponsors and have decided to decline that invitation.

4) Herman Cain: Herman Cain announced on or before May 24, 2011 that he would attend the NH debate. When was he invited? Herman Cain met the criteria on April 28, 2011.

5) Rudy Giuliani: Rudy Giuliani qualified on May 4, 2011, when the UNH Survey Center released its Granite State Poll. When was he invited?

6) Polling firms excluded: Why did the criteria exclude the following polling firms: Rasmussen, Zogby, Public Policy Polling and Suffolk — all of whom conducted national polls on the Republican 2012 primary during April and May 2011?

7) Debate Date Moved: The Debate was originally set for June 7th, but was rescheduled to June 13th. The decision to change the debate date was announced on April 27, 2011. Why was the date moved?

8.) UNH Survey Center Polls: When were the UNH Survey Center’s two polls about the 2012 Republican primary (which came out in May 2011) commissioned? Were they commissioned prior to April 1, 2011 (the beginning of the criteria period)? It is important to note that in May 2007, the UNH Survey Center did not conduct any polls about the Republican primary.

The 2007 debate was also hosted by CNN, WMUR TV and the New Hampshire Union Leader. In this debate there were 10 participants: Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson. The pre-established objective criteria for this debate was never released; however, by 2011 standards, it would have been a 6-man debate. During April and May of 2007, Jim Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson did not average 2% on three national polls.

If the same criteria was applied 4 years ago, UNH Survey Center polling would have excluded Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Jim Gilmore and Ron Paul, all of whom would not have met (.pdf) a 2% polling criteria.

TAKE ACTION

Please take five minutes to contact CNN, WMUR, and the NH Union-Leader and demand that Gary Johnson is included in their June 13 GOP debate.

A former Republican Governor should automatically gain inclusion in a GOP debate. It’s really that simple.

For WMUR, call 603-669-9999 or email them; for the NH Union-Leader, call 603-668-4321 (redirect to the Newsroom) or email them; for CNN, call 404-827-1500 or text CNN (space) and your news tip.

Also, please sign this petition for inclusion.

CALLING FOR INCLUSION

A variety of individuals and groups are calling for Johnson’s inclusion in the June 13 debate. A sampling of comments is found below.

“The decision to exclude Gary Johnson is completely out of step with the spirit of the New Hampshire primary. We endorse an open political process that keeps New Hampshire special. We respectfully request that the debate partners — CNN, WMUR, and the New Hampshire Union-Leader — reconsider this decision and welcome Gov. Johnson to the June 13th debate.”
– David Hurst
Chairman, New Hampshire Young Republicans

“When any media outlet decides they are the judge of a “viable” candidate, such as the denial of Governor Gary Johnson (in a GOP debate at St. Anselm’s College Monday), at that point they are usurping the voter’s right to choose a candidate. I say shame on any news agency putting itself in a position to decide which candidate is worthy for America to hear. Just on the face of this issue it seems un-American.”
– Jerry DeLemus
Chairman, Granite State Patriots Liberty PAC

“Man, Gary Johnson’s supporters are dedicated, and unrelenting.”
– Jeff Winkler
Columnist, The DailyCaller

“GOProud has significant policy differences with Governor Johnson, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. However, we believe strongly that Governor Johnson deserves to be included and that Republican primary voters’ best interest would be served by having his voice in this important debate.”
– Jimmy LaSalvia
Executive Director, GOProud

“CNN appears to be aiding and abetting the attempted overturning of gay marriage in one of the five states where it is legal. CNN should lead the way and open up its debate to all serious Presidential candidates, not just some.”
– Fred Karger (who also wants to be included in the debate)
GOP Presidential candidate

“Sign the change.org petition to get Gary Johnson into the debate!”
– Willy Nelson’s TeaPot Party

Let us not accept NO as the answer. Doing so would allow CNN too much power over the GOP primary.

In today’s meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee (“SREC”), the Texas Republican Party passed a resolution that urged Governor Rick Perry to call HB 1937 into the current special legislative session. This is the highly publicized bill by State Representative David Simpson (R-Longview) which make TSA employees liable for criminal penalties for inappropriately touching passengers during pat downs. The RLC in Texas and nationwide has taken the lead on supporting this important civil liberties legislation.

The Texas State Legislature is only allowed to convene a regular legislative session for  140 days once every 2 years.  Many Texans believe the strict limitation on political “law-making” is the main reason why Texas enjoys greater freedom and economic prosperity than other states.  Other Texans believe the State Legislature should only meet for 2 days once every 140 years.

The Governor has the right to call one or more “special sessions” of the State Legislature to consider emergency legislation.  These special legislative sessions may last from several days to a month.

After having been implicated in the procedural death of the anti-groping bill during the regular legislative session, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst later reversed course and recommended HB 1937 for the current special session in a letter to Governor Rick Perry.  To date, Gov. Perry has not called the bill, claiming he needed to determine if there was a “consensus” of support for it.

Well, today, another nearly unanimous consensus was added on to the pile of overwhelmingly strong support for the “restrain-the-TSA” legislation, as the SREC passed the following resolution without debate at its meeting in Austin, Texas.  Only one committee member voted in opposition to the resolution.

RESOLUTION on TSA “enhanced pat-down” Opposition, supporting HB-1937 in Special Session

Whereas 82R HB 1937 (now known as HB 41 in the current special session) safeguards basic rights defined under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for persons traveling in Texas;

Whereas “enhanced pat-downs” by the Transportation Safety Administration are administrative policies established by federal bureaucracy and not statutory law enacted by federal government and therefore cannot hold supremacy over the U.S. Constitution or the Texas State Constitution;

Whereas it is unlawful for properly trained law enforcement officers to perform “enhanced pat-downs” as performed by the Transportation Safety Administration;

Whereas HB 1937 received a unanimous recommendation from the House Criminal Jurisprudence committee;

Whereas HB 1937 was unanimously passed by the Texas House of Representatives;

Whereas HB 1937 received a unanimous recommendation from the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security committee;

Whereas HB 1937 had oral expressions of support from 30 of 31 Texas State Senators prior to being scheduled for hearing on the Senate floor;

Whereas Senate passage of HB 1937 was halted at the eleventh hour after the U.S. Department of Justice delivered a factually inaccurate letter concerning the effect of HB 1937 and that threatened an immediate injunction which included “canceling a flight or series of flights”

Whereas this level of intimidation establishes grounds for a constitutional crisis;

Whereas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst has now recommended HB 1937 for the current special session of the State Legislature;

Be It Resolved that the State Republican Executive Committee urges Governor Rick Perry to call 82R HB 1937–now filed as HB 41–as emergency legislation so that it may be considered by the Texas Legislature in special session.

All Texans should applaud the SREC for unambiguously standing up to what appeared to some to be pressure from the party establishment not to make this clear statement. Republican parties in other states are watching what happens in Texas and will be looking at how this situation develops in pursuing similar legislation in their states.

This is not the end of the story. Governor Perry still needs to get on board to support the bill. If you are in Texas, please call Governor Perry’s office at 512-463-2000 NOW and say that you are IN FAVOR of HB 1937, and that HB 1937 needs the Governor’s FULL SUPPORT and should  be passed in the upcoming special session.

Remind the Governor that anything less would undermine his “Fed Up” campaign for the U.S. presidency.  You can also tell representatives in the Texas House and Senate it should tell the TSA to Come and Take It!

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Virginia hosted its 2011 State Convention this Saturday in Arlington. The Convention featured three speakers: Delegate Rich Anderson, U.S. Senate candidate Tim Donner, U.S. House candidate Ken Vaughn, and State Senate candidate Robert Sarvis.

Each of the candidates talked about their campaigns and Del. Anderson talked about his work in the legislature.

About 30 people attended the event, which was held in northern Virginia. At the business session, members elected the following officers and board members:

George Primbs, Chairman
Steven Latimer, Vice Chair
Robert Kenyon, Secretary
Cliff Dunn, Treasurer
Nick Cote, Rick Sincere, Mitchell Bemos (At-Large Board members)
Eric Brescia, Shelby McCurnin (Alternate Board members)

Thank you to the RLCVA speakers and to our newly elected RLCVA Board!

A draft of the new RLCVA website can be found online and photos of the event follow.

U.S. Senate candidate Tim Donner spoke to RLCVA members.

Virginia RLC members look on.

Delegate Rich Anderson of the Woodbridge area spoke to RLC members

Aaron with Tim Donner.

Seven Republicans will meet this month for the first New Hampshire debate of the 2012 election, taking place on June 13 in Manchester and sponsored by CNN/WMUR/NH Union-Leader.

Unfortunately, RLC Advisory Board member Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico twice elected in a Democrat state, was not invited. This despite the fact that Johnson polls at 3% nationally and participated in the first GOP Presidential debate in South Carolina. Several of the candidates invited have not even announced they are running, but Johnson formally announced his candidacy.

RLC members believe that Governor Johnson (as well as Congressman Ron Paul) has solutions to offer Republican voters. If they are not permitted to hear the liberty message, they can’t become a part of the liberty movement by joining groups like the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Johnson’s positions and viewpoints have particularly strong appeal to New Hampshire voters and not including them is doing them a real disservice.

TAKE ACTION

If concerned Americans don’t protest the exclusion of Governor Johnson from the debate, he will surely not be included. However, if we let folks know what our opinion on the matter is, they are more likely to give him consideration.

Please request to hear Governor Gary Johnson in the debate!

• There is now a grassroots petition being signed up online Change.org which will be sent to media and GOP leaders.

• Call WMUR at (603) 669-9999 and fill out their contact form.

• Call the NH Union-Leader newspaper at (603) 668-4321 or e-mail them.

• Call CNN at (404) 827-1500 or (202) 898-7900 or text CNN (space) and your news tip to 772937. You can also submit your comment online.

• Post your comments at CNN’s article about the debate.

Another option is to contact the Advertising Departments for each of these outlets and inform them that you will not be purchasing anything they sell until Gary Johnson is included in the debate. If the Advertising Department believes they will lose customers, they will pressure other departments to change their strategy.

If prospective GOP voters do not get to hear from Gary Johnson, it’s one less liberty advocate providing the solutions our country needs.

Please forward this message to other concerned Americans.

Congratulations to members of the Republican Liberty Caucus in Delaware and Massachusetts. Members in both states have come together over the last several months to meet, organize, approve Bylaws, elect officers, and formalize their state affiliates.

Delaware RLC members have elected Diane Hernandez of New Castle as Chair with Jason O’Neill and Joseph O’Leary serving in other officer positions. The Delaware RLC officers attended the RLC National Convention in Arlington, Virginia last February.

Massachusetts RLC members, who have their own website up at http://www.massrlc.com/index.php, have elected Kevin Martin Chairman and Kamal Jain as Treasurer. Shelly Ortelt and Keith Messina will serve as Vice-Chair and Secretary.

Massachusetts RLC members gathered in February for their first meeting.

Congratulations to the officers and members of these two new state affiliates. Members of the RLC in Colorado and South Carolina should get in touch with their state contacts soon because both states have members working to charter their affiliates.

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.

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.

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.

Tea Party Seen As Key Political Force
Harvard Crimson by Caleb J. Thompson, CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Published: Wednesday, April 27, 2011

A panel of journalists and political activists agreed that the Tea Party has become an increasingly important force in American politics at a discussion entitled “The Tea Party: What’s Brewing for the Budget Battle and the Ballot Box,” hosted by the Institute of Politics yesterday.

The speakers focused on the Tea Party’s origins and how it will factor into the current budget debate as well as the upcoming presidential election.

“It’s time for the Republic to return to the people’s hands,” said Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire. He was joined by Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator and co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, CNN reporter and producer Shannon Travis, and New York Times political correspondent Kate Zernike.

The discussion was moderated by IOP Director C. M. Trey Grayson ’94.

Hemingway and Martin made the point throughout the evening that the Tea Party is a grassroots organization and adheres to three strict values: fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.

The panelists were all largely in agreement over what the Tea Party is, but they disagreed over its political potential.

“The knife cuts both ways,” Travis said, adding that the group was in danger of becoming a victim of its own prodigious growth.

“The tea party’s success and tactics have given fodder to their critics,” he added, questioning the organization’s ability to influence politics at a national as well as at a state level.

Zernike said that those politicians elected through Tea Party support might be forced to choose between answering the demands of the group and the wider demands of Americans at large.

The real question, she said, was not what the Tea Party has achieved already, but what it will do next.

All the panelists were in general agreement that the next two years will be very important for the Tea Party. But the debate became more heated once the floor was opened up for questions.

When one questioner mentioned alleged sponsorship of the Tea Party by the Koch brothers—two wealthy industrialists who are often associated with Republican causes—Hemingway jokingly asked if the questioner knew the brothers and could get them to send him a check.

Following the event, several audience members said they were pleased with the quality of the discussion.

“The panel solidified many of the beliefs I already had,” said Ben Grivno, an audience member and self-described Tea Party activist.

Luciana E. Milano ’14 said she was glad to attend a contentious panel. “I was excited to see the bickering,” she said.

(c) 2011, Harvard Crimson.