Scandal in the LP

Undertoad · 02-02-2002, 02:12 PM

I wrote this for K5 and I'm cc'ing it here.

Scandal in the Libertarian Party

A long-running scandal in the Libertarian Party is met with the typical response seen in other political parties. It's not at all surprising that any group of people, much less a politically-oriented one, should find itself embroiled in some degree of scandal. The whole event tells us much about politics, power, and the LP itself.

In the mid-90s, it was learned that employees of the national office of the Libertarian Party were working on the Harry Browne for President campaign. This would not have been a concern, but it happened before his official nomination by the party -- and resources of the national party were used in the effort. This gave Browne an unfair advantage and helped to ensure his nomination.

So what's the big deal? To almost anyone watching in 1996, Browne was the obvious candidate, not just the front-runner. He was well-spoken, telegenic, and had a history and a small following outside the LP. The LP hardliners were wringing their hands over Browne's idea of a 5% national sales tax, and forced him to recant the idea; but other than this bump in the road, Browne had smooth sailing to his 1996 nomination.

In the middle of all this, the Libertarian National Committee, an elected group which sets direction for the party and hires and controls the national office, voted to change their official policy to prohibit paid staffers from working on pre-nomination campaigns. But this did not sit well with National Director Perry Willis, who by now was doing an large amount of work for the Browne campaign. Despite numerous requests from the Chair for Willis to stop, he quietly continued to work for Browne throughout the pre-nomination period.

This fact was suspected by many, but was never proven until April 2001 - well after the end of Browne's second campaign. John Famularo, a former national party officer, circulated a memo and invoice which showed that not only was Willis working for the campaign, but getting paid for it.

This served to confirm the notion that many held, which was that some people in the national "clique" were not so interested in building a successful party as they were interested in getting paid for it. Careful review of the Browne campaign expenditures does little to show otherwise; over $600,000 of the 1996 campaign went towards "consulting" including lots of money to many on the national payroll. Some of the players involved did much to preserve the clique at all costs by covering up the mess. Browne himself was a full participant, and once it was proven, Willis issued a 20-page "confession" memo.

In August 2001, the LNC voted to censure Willis and "admonish" other conspirators, including Harry Browne himself. They found the nearest rug to sweep it all under, did the smallest amount possible. Some critics were astounded and left the party; some stuck around to right the problems; most just wanted the problem gone so they could focus on whatever comes next.

So what? Compared to other political scandals, this is a drop in the bucket. Some of those involved might even have had the best of intentions. But there are lessons to be learned, and this is the bigger story.

The LP's slogan "The Party of Principle" encourages people to think of it as principled. But those principles were so easily sold out for the simplest of motivations. The promise of money and power are powerful, even in the most idealistic people. Consider this in your own organizations; where money and power are dealt, insist on external controls, review, auditing, and full disclosure.

One of the problems in trying to determine what the Browne campaigns were doing was that the information was only available in FEC reports. Idealistically, the LP is very anti-FEC. Amazingly, some mis-guided LPers go so far as to demand that using FEC reports to detail scandalous behavior is against the LP's principles. But the Browne campaigns never detailed most of their expenditures outside of those reports. Remarkably, the Browne campaign wanted to file suit against the FEC, to avoid disclosing its finances, early in its second campaign.

Another lesson is to watch for these tendencies in yourself. One of Willis' rationales was that the LP has few people who are qualified to run a national campaign. He probably wanted to believe that and perhaps he did. But is Willis himself qualified? Both Browne campaigns spent millions of dollars, yet did very little advertising and much of the money went to fundraising efforts. Many campaigns and groups within the LP face a similar circumstance; money raised last year goes to fund-raising efforts for this year, ad infinitum, without real results.

Will the LP survive its foray into scandal? Most certainly; partly because the LP News did not highlight much of it, most LP members are unaware that there was any trouble. And despite inquisitions by its national director, whose hand was largely forced by Famularo's obvious proof, the national clique has for the most part survived. One of the implicated is the front-runner to be elected the party's national chair in its next national convention. One of the implicated refused to offer even a reponse to the formal inquisition; he now intends to run the most visible LP campaign of 2002 (for the US Senate from Massachusetts).

But perhaps most interesting is the contrast between the LP's ideology and its internal behavior. Part of the LP's ideology is that a strong federal government with highly-controlled central planning is wrong. How ironic, then, that the LP's leadership wound up developing along a centrally-planned model with a strong national organizaiton, because it benefitted the people at the top; and that its leaders rationalize the problems that entail. Even in the principled, "CYA" is standard operating procedure.

Moreover, if politics is inevitable, what role does prinicple play in government? If politics and power-wrangling can infect even the most principled group, perhaps politics is more important all-around than principle. Perhaps everyone inside the Washington beltway already knows this, but it's important for the rest of us to understand too.

The pudding:

<a href="http://www.lp2000.com/BCI/timeline.htm">LP historical timeline by John Famularo</a><br>
<a href="http://www.lp2000.com/BCI/PWconfess.htm">Copy of Perry Willis's "confession" memo</a><br>
<a href="http://www.jacobghornberger.com/">Jacob Hornberger's ethics investigations essays</a><br>
<a href="http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/">Liberty Magazine details Browne's involvement</a><br>
<a href="http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0107/willis.html">LP News story on investigation of policy violation</a>

SteveDallas · 02-06-2002, 01:36 PM

OK, so how could one organize a non-centralized political party? Isn't it almost a contradiction in terms? It may be that core Libertarian ideals don't mesh well with the traditional structure of a political party as manifested in American history; if so, is it even possible to promote a structure that can simultaneously uphold these ideals and function well enough in the political arena to win some elections?

02-02-2002, 02:12 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Scandal in the LP I wrote this for K5 and I'm cc'ing it here. Scandal in the Libertarian Party A long-running scandal in the Libertarian Party is met with the typical response seen in other political parties. It's not at all surprising that any group of people, much less a politically-oriented one, should find itself embroiled in some degree of scandal. The whole event tells us much about politics, power, and the LP itself. In the mid-90s, it was learned that employees of the national office of the Libertarian Party were working on the Harry Browne for President campaign. This would not have been a concern, but it happened before his official nomination by the party -- and resources of the national party were used in the effort. This gave Browne an unfair advantage and helped to ensure his nomination. So what's the big deal? To almost anyone watching in 1996, Browne was the obvious candidate, not just the front-runner. He was well-spoken, telegenic, and had a history and a small following outside the LP. The LP hardliners were wringing their hands over Browne's idea of a 5% national sales tax, and forced him to recant the idea; but other than this bump in the road, Browne had smooth sailing to his 1996 nomination. In the middle of all this, the Libertarian National Committee, an elected group which sets direction for the party and hires and controls the national office, voted to change their official policy to prohibit paid staffers from working on pre-nomination campaigns. But this did not sit well with National Director Perry Willis, who by now was doing an large amount of work for the Browne campaign. Despite numerous requests from the Chair for Willis to stop, he quietly continued to work for Browne throughout the pre-nomination period. This fact was suspected by many, but was never proven until April 2001 - well after the end of Browne's second campaign. John Famularo, a former national party officer, circulated a memo and invoice which showed that not only was Willis working for the campaign, but getting paid for it. This served to confirm the notion that many held, which was that some people in the national "clique" were not so interested in building a successful party as they were interested in getting paid for it. Careful review of the Browne campaign expenditures does little to show otherwise; over $600,000 of the 1996 campaign went towards "consulting" including lots of money to many on the national payroll. Some of the players involved did much to preserve the clique at all costs by covering up the mess. Browne himself was a full participant, and once it was proven, Willis issued a 20-page "confession" memo. In August 2001, the LNC voted to censure Willis and "admonish" other conspirators, including Harry Browne himself. They found the nearest rug to sweep it all under, did the smallest amount possible. Some critics were astounded and left the party; some stuck around to right the problems; most just wanted the problem gone so they could focus on whatever comes next. So what? Compared to other political scandals, this is a drop in the bucket. Some of those involved might even have had the best of intentions. But there are lessons to be learned, and this is the bigger story. The LP's slogan "The Party of Principle" encourages people to think of it as principled. But those principles were so easily sold out for the simplest of motivations. The promise of money and power are powerful, even in the most idealistic people. Consider this in your own organizations; where money and power are dealt, insist on external controls, review, auditing, and full disclosure. One of the problems in trying to determine what the Browne campaigns were doing was that the information was only available in FEC reports. Idealistically, the LP is very anti-FEC. Amazingly, some mis-guided LPers go so far as to demand that using FEC reports to detail scandalous behavior is against the LP's principles. But the Browne campaigns never detailed most of their expenditures outside of those reports. Remarkably, the Browne campaign wanted to file suit against the FEC, to avoid disclosing its finances, early in its second campaign. Another lesson is to watch for these tendencies in yourself. One of Willis' rationales was that the LP has few people who are qualified to run a national campaign. He probably wanted to believe that and perhaps he did. But is Willis himself qualified? Both Browne campaigns spent millions of dollars, yet did very little advertising and much of the money went to fundraising efforts. Many campaigns and groups within the LP face a similar circumstance; money raised last year goes to fund-raising efforts for this year, ad infinitum, without real results. Will the LP survive its foray into scandal? Most certainly; partly because the LP News did not highlight much of it, most LP members are unaware that there was any trouble. And despite inquisitions by its national director, whose hand was largely forced by Famularo's obvious proof, the national clique has for the most part survived. One of the implicated is the front-runner to be elected the party's national chair in its next national convention. One of the implicated refused to offer even a reponse to the formal inquisition; he now intends to run the most visible LP campaign of 2002 (for the US Senate from Massachusetts). But perhaps most interesting is the contrast between the LP's ideology and its internal behavior. Part of the LP's ideology is that a strong federal government with highly-controlled central planning is wrong. How ironic, then, that the LP's leadership wound up developing along a centrally-planned model with a strong national organizaiton, because it benefitted the people at the top; and that its leaders rationalize the problems that entail. Even in the principled, "CYA" is standard operating procedure. Moreover, if politics is inevitable, what role does prinicple play in government? If politics and power-wrangling can infect even the most principled group, perhaps politics is more important all-around than principle. Perhaps everyone inside the Washington beltway already knows this, but it's important for the rest of us to understand too. The pudding: <a href="http://www.lp2000.com/BCI/timeline.htm">LP historical timeline by John Famularo</a><br> <a href="http://www.lp2000.com/BCI/PWconfess.htm">Copy of Perry Willis's "confession" memo</a><br> <a href="http://www.jacobghornberger.com/">Jacob Hornberger's ethics investigations essays</a><br> <a href="http://www.libertysoft.com/liberty/">Liberty Magazine details Browne's involvement</a><br> <a href="http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0107/willis.html">LP News story on investigation of policy violation</a>

02-06-2002, 01:36 PM	#2
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	OK, so how could one organize a non-centralized political party? Isn't it almost a contradiction in terms? It may be that core Libertarian ideals don't mesh well with the traditional structure of a political party as manifested in American history; if so, is it even possible to promote a structure that can simultaneously uphold these ideals and function well enough in the political arena to win some elections?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)