Three U.S. Senate candidates who have been endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus are well on their way to securing victories in November.

First, Pat Toomey won an easy victory last night in his race and will face Congressman Joe Sestak in November. Toomey, while more of a social conservative generally, has a proven record of voting for less government. His new opponent, Sestek, is telegenic and has a heavy populist streak, so Toomey will have to energize his base while also reaching out to independents and moderates to win in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

Mike Lee is now in a run-off with Tim Bridgewater in the Republican U.S. Senate primary in Utah, which will be decided by Utah Republican Party voters on June 22. Lee’s opponent Tim Bridgewater is someone that has been running for various positions locally for quite some time. Like Lee, he is concerned about too much government interference, but his policy solutions are different. Specifically, Mr. Bridgewater believes in more U.S. intervention abroad and much more federal involvement in immigration. After looking at the issue pages of their websites again, I have no doubt that Mike Lee is the solution-focused leader that Utah needs in the Senate. Which is why the Republican Liberty Caucus endorsed him, along with his commitment to limited government.

Most importantly, Rand Paul is the Republican nominee in Kentucky. Dr. Paul gained nearly 60% of the vote in his primary yesterday. He will face Attorney General Jack Conway in November. While watching the fair and balanced news last night, I already saw various left-wing pundits excited that Rand Paul was the victor so they could start attacking his views.  Will the Tea Party and the Liberty Movement have the power to take Rand to the finish line?

These candidates, while not perfect, are our best hope to achieve liberty in the coming years. With these three committed small government advocates in the Senate, our country will be much better off.  Work tirelessly to support them in the coming months.

The Republican Liberty Caucus, which exists to promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party, has endorsed a candidate for Governor in Maine and a candidate for Governor in Pennsylvania.

Maine has seven Republican candidates vying for the Republican nomination, which will be decided on the June 8 primary. Pennsylvania has two Republican candidates running to win the May 18 primary.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Maine, a chartered state affiliate, has endorsed Waterville Mayor Paul LePage (pictured below) for Governor.

The national RLC Board of Directors has endorsed Sam Rohrer for Governor and Russ Diamond for Lt. Governor in Pennsylvania. Diamond and Rohrer are not running on the same ticket, as elections will occur independently for both offices.

“The Maine RLC Board voted to make a donation from the Maine RLC Political Action Committee to the LePage campaign,” said Maine RLC Vice-Chair Vic Berardelli. LePage has an interesting background, having been born the oldest of 18 children to impoverished parents. He left home at age 11, when he was adopted after being on the streets. Olympia Snowe’s first husband persuaded a college to accept LePage despite his poor verbal skills at the time. LePage went on to graduate, obviously improving on his language skills, and opened several successful businesses. He currently serves as Mayor of Waterville, a Democrat stronghold, and has persuaded the council not to enact any tax increases.

LePage says he believes that Maine government must become smaller and more agile. He’d like to reform the state’s welfare system by placing greater emphasis on personal accountability. And apparently undaunted by the prospect of becoming a GOP governor who might very well have to work with majority Democrats in the Legislature, LePage says his experience as mayor of Waterville should give Mainers some idea of what they can expect from him as governor.

Pennsylvania does not have an active Republican Liberty Caucus affiliate. The national RLC Board of Directors endorsed State Representative Sam Rohrer for Governor in The Keystone State. This video outlines how Rohrer has tapped into the grassroots Tea Party and constitutionalist mood to run an uphill campaign for Governor.

Since his remarkable election to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1992, Rohrer has been one of the leading voices for state government reform. His outspoken support for constitutional principles has been the hallmark of his public service. More than opposing negative public policies, Sam has been a champion for consensus-building public policy alternatives and solutions.

This year he led an effort to pass a 10th Amendment Resolution to challenge the expanded reach of the federal government in areas ranging from health care to education. He also has appeared on “Freedom Watch” with Judge Andrew Napolitano.

Rohrer will face the establishment favorite, Attorney General Tom Corbett, in his primary.

The National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus has endorsed two former Members of Congress in their respective runs for U.S. Senate in Indiana and Pennsylvania.

U.S. Senator Evan Bayh (D) decided to retire this year, leaving Democrats to hope that Blue Dog Brad Ellsworth can win statewide. Because of where Ellsworth is from in the state and the political climate, Republicans in Indiana would be best served to select former Congressman John Hostettler to face him in the upcoming May primary.

Hostettler’s main primary opponents are State Senator Marlin Stutzman and former U.S. Senator Dan Coats. Stutzman is fairly competent on the issues, but seems to take a more interventionist position on foreign policy in contrast to Hostettler. The other problem with Stutzman is that he will not be able to rival Ellsworth in the General Election in southern Indiana. Senator Dan Coats is a moderate, not a conservative or a libertarian. He would not be the best candidate to capitalize on the angst and frustration expressed by conservative voters in 2010.

Which brings us to Hostettler. He’s not a perfect candidate, as he opposes a Balanced Budget Amendment and term limits, supports a closed border, and is too conservative on most hot-button social issues (but doesn’t usually believe the federal government should be involved). Perhaps his most significant vote was his 2002 vote to oppose the War in Iraq. He said at the time, “Iraq indeed poses a threat, but it does not pose an imminent threat that justifies a pre-emptive military strike at this time.”

Hostettler favors the dissolution of the Department of Education, and voted against the No Child Left Behind Act because he believes education is a state matter. He also voted against most federal health care bills with the view that health care is a private or state matter. He maintains that many federal environmental laws and regulations infringed on individual property rights. He is active in promoting issues of freedom of religion and expression. He supported repeal of the estate tax, capital gains tax, and marriage tax penalty. Hostettler was recently endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul, and his supporters are having a MoneyBomb tomorrow.

Let’s hope Hostettler wins the upcoming primary and sends Brad Ellsworth back to southern Indiana.

The Republican Liberty Caucus also endorsed Pat Toomey for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. Toomey’s Republican primary opponent is Peg Luksik, who is affiliated with the far-right of the Republican Party. His general election opponent will likely be Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Spector.

Pat Toomey is a former Congressman who upheld his term limits pledge in 1998 to only serve three terms. While in Congress, Toomey voted to reduce the capital gains tax, to eliminate the estate tax, to cut small business taxes and to eliminate the marriage penalty. He publicly opposed the stimulus package passed in 2009 and supports a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Toomey takes a libertarian position on Roe v. Wade, believing it should be overturned and returned to the states. That position, however, seems to contradict his support for an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. He also has a poor record on drug law reform (having voted against medical marijuana for DC) and foreign policy (having supported the Bush Administration’s War in Iraq).

Pat Toomey would be a competent and pro-liberty Senator for Pennsylvania.

Students for Liberty has taken on the amazing task of organizing seven regional conferences this fall. The conferences bring different types of liberty-loving students together to hear from prominent speakers — many of whom are affiliated with the Republican Liberty Caucus.

This year’s regional conferences have occurred, thus far, in New York, Chicago, Phoenix/Tempe, and Austin. The RLC conducted outreach at three of the four seminars and had official speakers at two out of the four seminars.

I previously reported on the outreach at the first conference, which occurred on October 10. Two RLC supporters helped us table at that event, and two RLC representatives spoke. The most notable of the speakers was former National Board member Dr. Murray Sabrin, who was a contender for U.S. Senate in 2008. Additionally, RLC Northeast Regional Director Dan Halloran addressed the crowd. Dan is running an impressive campaign for New York City Council in a district that trends more conservative than most in the city.

Above: Students at the Chicago Conference weigh the issues.

On October 17 in Chicago, students heard from two RLC representatives: former Michigan State Representative Leon Drolet and former Wisconsin State Representative Terri McCormick (photos below).

Leon participated in a debate with Isaac Moorehouse about how liberty-oriented people can achieve our goals.  Leon argued for the RLC strategy.  Terri McCormick gave a presentation about the political elite versus the grassroots, arguing that now is the time we take our country back for liberty.

On October 24, RLC members conducted outreach at two Students for Liberty Conferences: the Texas SFL conference in Austin and the Southern SFL conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Rising young star and RLC supporter Jared Fuller organized the Winston-Salem conference, and North Carolina RLC members Gloria Lloyd and Dana Mazer tabled for the Republican Liberty Caucus at the conference.  Former Congressional candidate and North Carolina RLC Board member B.J. Lawson was among the featured speakers.  Dr. Lawson gave a speech called “The Economy, Monty Python, and You”:

Meanwhile, RLC National Chair Dave Nalle and Bexar County (Texas) RLC Membership Chair Nadia Gaona reached out at the Texas SFL conference.

Dave observed a general trend that we continue to see to in our small-but-growing movement, noting that “the long-time libertarian activists [in the] audience were eager to stand up and talk proudly about their token political campaigns where they spent no money but got their name mentioned in the local newspaper when they won 3% of the vote.”

Says Dave, “It’s heartening to see the growth of interest in liberty and bringing our government under control, but it’s enormously frustrating to see so much of this enthusiasm misdirected into the political dead end and do-nothingism which still characterizes the Libertarian Party. The truth is that the pissed-off non-intellectuals of the Tea Party movement who come to libertarianism out of expediency rather than intellect have already accomplished more real political change in a year than the Libertarian Party has accomplished in more than 30 years.”

All complaints aside, these events have proven tremendously beneficial to the movement and the RLC has been able to capitalize on the opportunity to reach new young people with our strategy for victory.

The next RLC outreach booths at Students for Liberty Conferences will occur on November 7, when members will conduct outreach at the Philadelphia and Boston Students for Liberty Conferences.  Prospective RLC endorsee, 2010 U.S. Senate candidate from Connecticut Peter Schiff will be speaking at the Boston conference.  Schiff has previously explained the RLC strategy in a poignant way.

We look forward to reaching additional students at these conferences and thank the Students for Liberty for continuing to host these tremendous regional events. Thanks, too, to all of the RLC representatives and volunteers who have helped us at the conferences.

Above: Former Michigan State Representative Leon Drolet makes his points in a debate on strategies to attain liberty in our lifetime.

Online forums frequented by grassroots activists are abuzz these days regarding the grassroots political movement in the states to reaffirm that our states are sovereign entities while rebuking the federal government’s over-involvement in key areas of our lives as well as mandates pushed onto the states by the federal government.

In 2009, there has already been a move among legislators in more than 25 states to push for some type of state sovereignty resolution.

Oklahoma’s sovereignty bill, which passed their House last session but got stalled in the Senate, came out of the House with near unanimous support. In the House, longtime champion of the RLC Charles Key is the author of the legislation and second-term incumbent Jason Murphey is a vocal advocate for the bill. Murphey was endorsed by the RLC in 2006 and 2008. The Senate bill is being championed by Sen. Randy Brogdon, a great friend of the RLC. “What we are trying to do is to get the U.S. Congress out of the state’s business,” said Brogdon.

The bill is currently in the Senate. Without the RLC’s strong citizen legislators in Oklahoma, this bill would never have been drafted. Rep. Murphey recently penned an editorial published in The Edmond Sun explaining his state’s sovereignty bill and linking it specifically to the unfunded mandates and massive spending in Obama’s stimulus bill.

Similarly, in New Hampshire, Dan Itse, a favorite among RLC members in the Granite State, filed a bill to affirm sovereignty in the New Hampshire House. Itse was on Fox and Friends and Glenn Beck recently to promote the bill, citing No Child Left Behind and the PATRIOT Act as examples of the federal government over-stepping its boundaries.

In Pennsylvania, Rep. Sam Rohrer, who the RLC endorsed in 2008, has been fighting against REAL ID since it passed Congress.  Rohrer cites the following examples of state sovereignty erosion:

- By collecting taxes from state residents and then using that money to compel sovereign state governments –- through the use of “strings” attached to federal funding – to implement programs and provide services in accordance with the desires of federal authorities;
- By pushing states toward financial distress by providing financial incentives to implement programs and services without supplying adequate federal funding.
- By enacting national laws that go far beyond the federal powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution; and
- By potentially providing federal funds to fill state budget deficits, which were created, in part, through over-spending prompted by federal financial incentives to create new programs.

In Montana, the state sovereignty resolution was introduced by (among others) RLC-endorsed first-year legislators Wendy Warburton (left) and Gerry Bennett.  Aubyn Curtiss, who endorsed Ron Paul for President, is the Senate sponsor of the legislation.

Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, and Maine may see similar measures introduced this session.

Links to the legislation: GA, MI, MO, MT, NH, OK, PA, SC, WA

As more governors declare their opposition to the Stimulus Bill — which is now estimated to include more than $1 trillion in unfunded mandates for the states above and beyond the initial $800 billion cost — more and more state legislators across the nation have been introducing bills to assert state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment in an effort to assert the rights of their citizens and the authority of state governments against unwarranted interference by the federal government.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Idaho Governor Butch Otter stated their support for the position against the stimulus taken by Texas Governor Rick Perry and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford this week. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has been speaking publicly against the bill and when it passed her office issued a statement praising Alaska’s congressional delegation for voting against it:

“Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski did their best to achieve the right balance in the bill, but in the end the majority allowed the spending to balloon and encompass support for programs that don’t respond to the problem at hand.”

Meanwhile, Governor Palin made the bizarrely optimistic suggestion that President Obama should Veto the bill to five lawmakers a chance to at least read the bill and specifically citing the problem for the states in the huge amount of unfunded mandates in the bill.

The push for state sovereignty laws has really gone nationwide. Texas has gotten on board with a bill submitted this week with six sponsors. It is basically the same as the Oklahoma resolution rather than the more radical New Hampshire resolution, which gives it a better chance of passage. Texas is a big state, and having it in the fight adds a lot of serious weight.

Although it is not yet confirmed on their legislature’s website, the story is circulating that Tennessee is the first state to pass a sovereignty resolution through both of its legislative houses, in only 2 days from its introduction on Wednesday. Their version is a non-binding resolution which doesn’t require the governor’s signature or have the force of law, but it is a significant statement nonetheless.

In Pennsylvania, State Representative Sam Rohrer is leading the charge, and has made a very impassioned video statement which lays out exactly what the problem is and urges other states to join him in reasserting their sovereignty and rejecting federal mandates, stressing the very real concern that the spendthrift federal government will take the fiscally responsible states down with them.

There’s also news from Oklahoma, where a quick phonecall to State Representative Charles Key confirms that the sovereignty resolution which he got through the house last year was approved unanimously by the rules committee and on Wednesday was passed by the Oklahoma House by a 83-13 majority and may be voted on by the state Senate as early as next week, with high hopes of passage.

Missouri, as always, is marching to its own radically conservative drummer, with a state sovereignty bill up for consideration which is unique in that it specifically takes exception to the pro-abortion proposed federal Freedom of Choice law. This is conceptually similar to the bills being considered in Indiana, Wyoming and Oregon which reassert state sovereignty with a special emphasis on gun owners rights in response to a bill currently being considered in the House of Representatives to require licensing of all firearms nationwide.

Because of these articles a lot of concerned citizens are contacting me from various different states about what their states are doing. Sources in Maine inform me that they have also had a sovereignty bill proposed, but because of the structure of their legislative session it likely won’t even be looked at for months. A sovereignty bill was introduced in Minnesota on Thursday as HF997. Arkansas joined in with a bill in its state House of Representatives on Friday morning as well.

Some states have yet to get state legislators on board and are trying alternative methods. In Florida there is a pettition which will be submitted to the state legislature, which may not sit terribly well will stimulus-embracing Governor Charlie Crist. In Massachusets under a provision of their state constitution any citizen can request that a legislator submit a bill on their behalf. Ron Bokleman is struggling to get his bill, which is a version of the New Hampshire bill, past bureaucratic red tape so that it will actually be considered by the legislature. One correspondent also pointed out that a number of states passed or at least considered sovereignty bills in the past, starting with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions authored by Madison and Jefferson back in 1799, but with some much more recent, like Utah’s 1995 bill which passed their House, a reminder that concern over unfunded mandates isn’t new, though it’s growing ever more critical.

It now looks as if at least half the states will have some sort of sovereignty bill up for consideration this year. Combine that with governors and legislators who are worried about how they’ll ever be able to pay for the massive unfunded mandates included in the so-called stimulus bill, and you have a volatile rift developing between the relatively fiscally responsible and citizen-friendly state governments and the incredibly fiscally irresponsible and increasingly autocratic government in Washington, DC. If we stand together and make our voices heard, we can stop further federal stimulus and bailout spending. If we can reassert control by 2010 we can stop at least two thirds of the current stimulus money from ever being spent. It’s time to storm the gates of power and let our elected leaders know that we do not want to see our country bankrupted and driven into socialism out of desperation and expediency.

According to the Evening Sun, Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) is working to consolidate over 500 of Pennsylvania’s school districts down to 100 districts. According to Rendell, “Almost everyone agrees that Pennsylvania has far too many school districts … we just don’t need that many school districts, and, more importantly, in today’s economy we cannot afford them.” Gov. Rendell is going to create a Commission to hash out the details of the plan, but if lawmakers reject the plans of that Commission, the state Board of Education has been given the authority to consolidate districts.

I disagree. More districts is better for several reason. First, fewer districts gives the federal and state governments more control over local districts — an idea that libertarians believe will fundamentally result in more failed schools.  Then there is the obvious point that local teachers and parents know much more about local students than students being bused across the county or than state bureaucrats. Of course, there will also be additional burdens on local taxpayers.

As longtime RLC activist Jeff Palmer recently wrote, “A fundamental pillar of freedom is that power should be entrusted to the level of government closest to the people. A school board of a small district must be responsive to the voters; a school board of a large district is more insulated from its constituents and is typically beholden to unions, building contractors, and other large special interests.”

Keep in mind that, until the 1840s, American education was not a system at all, but a disjointed collection of local, regional, and usually private institutions.

In 2009, our federal Department of Education has a budget of over $56 billion annually. Under George W. Bush, the Department primarily focused on elementary and secondary education, expanding its reach through the “No Child Left Behind” law. The Department’s budget increased 69.6% between 2002 and 2004. However, an overwhelming majority of teachers oppose the law.

In 1996, the Republican Party made abolition of the Department a cornerstone of their campaign promises, calling it an inappropriate federal intrusion into local, state, and family affairs. The GOP platform read: “The Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the market place. This is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.”

This school district merger plan in Pennsylvania is another move toward central planning; it’s bad news for taxpayers, teachers, district administrators, and — most importantly — children who desperately need to learn.

In the past I’ve been a supporter of the moderate element in the Republican Party. I even blog occasionally for the Republican Leadership Council. They’re the heirs of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and their socially liberal and fiscally conservative positions are at the heart of Republican tradition. I lean more libertarian, but I’ve always seen Republican moderates as natural allies with a lot in common with the libertarian wing of the party.

When there has been disagreement between moderate Republicans and the more ideologically extreme wings of the party, the main thing which has redeemed the moderates in the eyes of doubters and justified party unity is that they have remembered the importance of fiscal responsibility, an essential Republican value which some other factions within the party seem to have lost track of in recent years.

But now, faced with an unprecedented economic crisis and a Democrat-dominated Congress running out of control, it looks like some of the moderates in the GOP are going to fail the party and fail the country by supporting the ill-conceived “stimulus” bill in some sort of misguided fit of irrational bipartisanship.

The latest news reports suggest that Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) may vote with the Democrats to give them the 60 votes they need in the Senate to pass this massive spending package. Collins argues that their cooperation is justified because of $110 billion in cuts which have brought the cost of the Senate version of the bill back down to about the $800 billion total of the House version.

The problem is that, despite the name which has been attached to it in an effort to provide positive spin, this is anything but a “stimulus” bill. The bill creates far fewer jobs than has been claimed, at a ridiculous cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars per possible job, and most of those jobs are short-term with no lasting positive impact. The tax cuts it contains are misdirected and will have very limited stimulus value. There’s still a great deal of pork and earmarked spending on pet projects. But that’s really all beside the point.

The country is in the middle of a fiscal crisis which was to a large extent precipitated by overspending and over extension of credit, not just by the big banks but by the federal government. To spend almost a trillion dollars which the government does not have does nothing but compound the fiscal irresponsibility which created the crisis in the first place. It will further devalue the dollar, increase inflation and likely create more business failures and greater unemployment.

Last week Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, made observations on the likely effects of the bill. He suggests that the beneficial effects of the bill will wear off quickly after about two years, and that the long term effect will be a reduction in available capital and ultimately a long-term reduction in GDP of between .1 and .3 percent. Elmendorf’s concerns are mild compared to those of prominent economists on both the political left and right who are increasingly unified in opposition to the bill. Over 200 of them took out an ad opposing it in the New York Times, saying that:

“It is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policy makers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.”

Relatively moderate Harvard economist Martin Feldstein who had initially supported the bill came out unequivocally against it in an editorial where he calls it “An $800 Billion Mistake” and specifically faults it for gross deficit spending with too little stimulus. In an article in the Wall Street Journal economists Alberto Alesina and Luigi Zingales sum up the problem with the bill succinctly: “Tax cuts have a much better effect on job creation than highway rehabilitation.”

Given all of this, it would be a terrible mistake for Republican moderates to adopt a misguided “go along to get along” attitude and vote with the Democrats when standing firm on their belief in fiscal responsibility might be just what’s needed to find a better solution. It’s quite likely that doing nothing at all would be better than this bill. But at the very least, Republicans in the Senate ought to hold out for a bill which has less unnecessary spending and more genuine stimulus in the form of tax cuts for individuals and businesses.

I’ve always believed that moderate Republicans had remarkably good sense and the best interests of the people at heart. Like many others in the party, I’ve put my trust in them over the years to balance out the voices of extremism because they could be counted on when it really mattered.

But if these three are going to betray the fiscally responsible traditions of the GOP and vote to support this disastrous bill, then they have clearly lost their way and will have failed as Republicans and as stewards of the best interests of their constituents and the nation.

You may want to contact these Senators and encourage them to develop some spine and remember their values. You can e-mail them with these links: Specter, Snowe, Collins. These are alternate links because their Senate contact pages are being crashed by the volume of emails.

I track political races all across the country — with an emphasis on the races that libertarian Republicans can win or have a significant impact on. The following is a list of races that you should pay attention to.

ARIZONA: Sydney Hay is a traditional limited government conservative with a long track record of leadership in Arizona. Now, Sydney wants to replace Republican Rick Renzi in Congress. Sydney has an uphill battle because of Renzi’s corruption charges and because the DNCC is targetting this seat for her opponent, State Representative Ann Kirkpatrick. The race will be a nail-biter come Nov. 4.

——————————————————

The RLC-USA PAC has donated $1,000 to Sydney Hay’s campaign.
Above, Sydney poses with RLC Adviser Barry Goldwater, Jr.

——————————————————

CALIFORNIA: Tom McClintock has, for over 20 years, been the conscience of the ultra moderate Republican Party of California. Tom is running for Congress in Placer and Modoc Counties, which traditionally trend conservative, but is having trouble because of George W. Bush and other neo-conservatives who have literally ruined the Republican brand. The race is rated “toss-up,” but libertarian Republicans across the country should be rooting for Tom McClintock.

INDIANA: Ron Paul campaign activist, businessman, and RLC member Bill Johnson is the Republican candidate for State Represenative in District 19, running against a one-term Democrat incumbent in a swing district. This is a race to watch!

MAINE: Former State Representative and RLC State Chair Ken Lindell is running for State Representative in the district he formerly represented.

MICHIGAN: Justin Amash is running for State Representative in a conservative district in suburban Grand Rapids. Justin is a longtime RLC member and supporter, and is considered a “rising star” in Michigan GOP politics. Look for Justin to win in November.

——————————————————

RLC endorsed Nevada State Senate candidate Lindsay Madsen.

——————————————————

NEVADA: Lindsay Nicole Madsen, a young rising star in the state GOP, is running for State Senate in Clark County (Las Vegas). How much damage can an outspoken, attractive and principled limited government candidate have in a traditionally Democrat district?

NORTH CAROLINA: There are three races to watch for libertarian Republicans interested in the Tar Heel State. B.J. Lawson, a favorite of libertarian Republicans, has waged an amazing uphill battle for Congress against David Price in District 4. Similarly, Asheville City Council member Carl Mumpower is targetting Heath Shuler in District 11; Shuler was elected by a small margin in 2006 in this swing district. Finally, State Auditor Les Merritt (Incumbent), who the state RLC has been in close contact with, is fighting off a challenge from accountant Beth Wood.

——————————————————

RLC endorsed incumbent, North Carolina State Auditor Les Merritt.

——————————————————

PENNSYLVANIA: Long-time State Representative Sam Rohrer (Incumbent) is in a tough re-election battle, and needs your support. Rohrer has been firm about preserving individual rights, and fought hard against the federal government on REAL ID.

TEXAS: State RLC Executive Director and all-around great guy Don Zimmerman is running for Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector.

WASHINGTON: Former State Representative and RLC State Contact Toby Nixon is running for State Representative in the district he formerly represented.

These are the races to watch as the election nears. Please help the above candidates succeed!

In a victory for drivers and taxpayers, a private consortium led by Citigroup and Spanish toll road operator Abertis Infraestructuras has, through a competitive bidding process, won the right for a 75-year lease of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The deal now waits on a final vote in the state legislature.

As noted in the Summer 2008 issue of Reason Reports, a quarterly update on activities of the libertarian Reason Foundation, the proposed $12.8 billion lease would be the largest ever in the U.S., dwarfing the $3.8 billion concession agreement for the Indiana Toll Road in 2006.

The deal is also a victory for the Reason Foundation and, in particular, Reason founder and Florida RLCer Robert Poole. Poole, as director of transportation studies at Reason, has been laying the groundwork for the success of this deal with research and commentary for years.

Currently, the Pennsylvania Turnpike is one of the country’s least cost-efficient toll roads, in a state whose roads have earned a ‘D’ from the American Society of Civil Engineers and has the county’s most deficient bridges.

Poole and Reason have long pointed to the advantages of using private – rather than government — capital and know-how to improve and maintain infrastructure. In fact, Poole is credited in inventing and popularizing the word ‘privatization,’ which refers to transferring resources and functions from the government to the people — the reverse of socialist ‘nationalization.’

Poole is also known as an advocate of variable-pricing HOT lanes on highways and the Trans Texas Corridor, dubbed the “NAFTA Super Highway” by free-trade opponents and conspiracy-minded populists.