Funding Liberty! Table of Contents
Funding Liberty!
Chapter 24
Aftershocks
The LP News Cover-Up
LP NEWS is the one news source that reaches essentially all Libertarian Party members whose dues are current. It is not as fast as the myriad of libertarian email lists, but its circulation is far larger. Individual email lists rarely reach as many as 1000 members, and a few hundred is more common. Depending on month, LP News had a circulation approaching 30,000. The only real single competitor of LP News is Liberty Magazine, whose circulation—largely to non-LP members —is perhaps a third as great.
What news came from the LNC August Meeting? According to LP News, the LNC approved a "strategic plan", elected Ken Bisson as Vice Chair and Don Gorman as At-Large Member, and passed or defeated various motions on the Browne-Willis scandal. Descriptions of these events reached the membership with the October issue of LP News. In that issue, the Strategic Plan was reported on Page One, while the Vice Chair and At-Large elections were the major article on Page Two. The top 2/3 of page 3 covered action on the war on drugs: The LP had joined a coalition opposing the appointment of John Walters. 3/5 of the bottom of the page went to good news from Virginia: The Virginia state party there had won the right to use partisan ballot labels. The final 2/5 of the bottom third of page three began the report on the Willis-Browne scandal.
Articles from Page One continued on Pages Fifteen, Sixteen, and Twenty. The other Page Three article with a continuation continued on Page Twelve. The bulk of the Censure Report was buried on Page Twenty-four.
For many LPUS members, the article was the first news that something irregular had happened during the 1996 Presidential Campaign. There had been an earlier article in the July issue, providing some background but not a link to Famularo's web site and time line. In the October article, one might still have expected further background material, clarifying what had happened, and explaining how the LNC had come to this stage in its investigation. That background material was largely lacking. The article noted Perry Willis's "public statement" of May 11, in which he "acknowledged violating LNC policy".
The article did not note that Willis's "public statement" was actually a vigorous defense of his decisions. John Famularo had posted to the web an extensive timeline from multiple sources; National Chair James Lark had done a detailed investigation, bye and bye to be available through dehnbase.org. URLs to these three sources, which were or would be available on the web, were not published. As background, the article explained how events began: In April John Famularo had "informally distributed a document to the LNC that suggested Willis had secretly worked for the Browne campaign." The document, of course, was not just a 'suggestion' of work; it was the Willis Invoice, a bill from Willis for specified services rendered.
As written, the lead page of the article focused the blame entirely on Willis, complete with a quotation box from Ken Bisson, saying "The LNC rejects the Willis deception completely". Willis was condemned 'for violating party policy'. The involvement of Harry Browne was not noted until the end of the fourth paragraph, where Willis was said to have acknowledged that he had "secretly written fundraising letters for the 1996 Harry Browne for President Campaign". While true, this statement was incomplete as a summary of Willis's admissions. Even a careful reader would not suspect from the opening page of the article that Willis had been paid under the table by the Browne Campaign. Just as important, the reader would never learn about Willis's claim—which has not been contested in a significant way—that Browne only won the nomination because Willis had violated Party policy. Willis was instead quoted as saying the letters had been written to "save the LP from a melt-down".
The article then presented Israel's resolution against Willis, summarizing as short bullets the key points of the original motion. Included as a bulleted point was the statement that 'no further evidence had been presented' about other wrongdoing. That statement was deleted from the original motion before it was passed. To learn about the deletion, to learn that there might have been new evidence, a reader would have had to compare the text bullets point by point with the 'Text of the Final Willis Resolution' sidebar, realize that they were different, and then realize that the sidebar was the motion actually passed by the LNC. The LP News article misrepresented the facts in a way that minimized any suggestion of further involvement by Browne and his entourage.
Mr. Dehn had decried the 'no further evidence had been presented' clause. The Minutes show him saying “he considers the motion an insult to the work of the Chair as well as others that have put time and effort into investigating this issue. He said that the statement that no other evidence has been presented is blatantly false." What happened to those remarks? In LP News, Dehn's remarks became "Joe Dehn said that the motion was 'insulting' because it was not forceful enough." Once again the LP News article misrepresented the facts in a way that benefited Browne and his entourage.
So much for the first resolution. Scherrey's substitute motion received a single paragraph. Its text was not presented. The 8-8 tie vote was reported, but the identities of the ayes and nays and Lark's abstention went unreported. After a short discussion of Givot's motion thanking Famularo for bringing forth the information (that motion was defeated), the LNC was described as continuing on to Scherrey's resolution pressing for more data.
That resolution passed. The text of Scherrey's second resolution, which was passed by the LNC, does not appear in LP News. The two motions appear equal in their importance; only the first, which refers only to Willis, was reported in full. Fragments of the second resolution appear here and there. Missing from those fragments and partial summaries was any hint of the clause "Whereas, it appears from the evidence submitted to this Committee that when said violation of policy was made public in late 1995, Mr. Browne then may have cooperated with Mr. Willis to hide further such violations by funneling further contracts with Mr. Willis through Jack Dean's company". Yet again, LP News coverage misrepresented the facts in a way that benefitted Browne and his entourage.
LP News coverage of the LNC resolutions was thus carefully structured to minimize negative information about Browne and his campaign staff. The Editor of LP News for the issue in question was Bill Winter. John Famularo has published a 1995 memorandum from the Browne campaign indicating that Winter and Willis were both members of the inner circle of the Browne campaign team. As seen from the LP News coverage, as late as October 2001 Browne’s supporters were still sufficiently well placed that they were able to hide much of the Browne scandal from the Party’s membership.
The Vice Chair Election
Having dealt with the Browne-Willis scandal, the National Committee turned to the election of a new Vice Chair. Outgoing Vice Chair Dan Fylstra had urged the election of Ken Bisson. Four days after Fylstra's resignation, friends and supporters of Donald Gorman of Deerfield, New Hampshire persuaded Gorman to run for Vice Chair. An on-line petition advocating his election by the LNC appeared at http://www.petitiononline.com/GoGorman/petition.html. Gorman was a four-term New Hampshire legislator and current public officeholder as Chairman of the Deerfield Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Gorman was soon endorsed by former LP National Secretary John Famularo:
“Most attendees at the national convention in Anaheim recognized that Don Gorman is a great asset to the Libertarian Party, which was shown by Manny Klausner and Ed Clark's successful motion to suspend the rules and offer Don the VP position on the LP national ticket. Even though he turned down the popular call to be the VP candidate, he continued and continues to tour the country with his candidate training seminars see: http://www.gorman2000.com/
“At this point in the party's history, attempting to develop a new strategic plan while suffering continuing and significant losses in membership, and faced with dealing with the escalating Browne/Willis fraud investigation, the LNC needs a mature, experienced, independent and morally based influence on the board and the executive committee.”
The election of Vice Chair happened late on Sunday. Don Gorman finished behind Ken Bisson on a vote of 10-7. Bisson’s elevation to the Vice Chair position created a vacancy for an At-Large Representative. In a further election for an At-Large Representative, Don Gorman defeated Charles Williams (South Carolina State Chair) on a 13-4 vote. The National Committee then agreed to elect one more member to the Executive Committee, to bring its membership back to 7. The candidates were Gorman and Eli Israel. Gorman finished behind Israel on a 10-8 vote.
While all elections were by secret ballot, my friends and members of the press had ascertained who was committed to supporting whom. Based on a variety of sources, for the Vice Chair election a best estimate of the supporters of the two candidates is
Gorman: Kaneshiki, Gaztanaga, Milsted, Dehn, Scherrey, Nelson, Turney.
Bisson: Lark, Givot, Martin, Bisson, Lieberman, Israel, Karlan, Rutherford, Hoch, Dixon.
However, at least one LNC member has opined to me that Nelson supported Bisson, and Hoch or Lark supported Gorman.
National Chair Lark had a long history of abstaining on all motions. He had even abstained as described above when Scherrey's Motion of Substitution reached a tie vote. Lark did not abstain in any of the elections. In the two close elections, my sources assert that Lark voted against Gorman. For the Executive Committee election, all Bisson votes transferred to Israel; Gorman was his own eighth vote.
Gorman soon took advantage of his position on the National Committee to call its attention to evidence of further wrongdoing during the 1996 Presidential campaign, evidence that had been collected over the summer by James Lark but not generally understood by those who saw it. In a letter sent to the National Committee in preparation for its October meeting and reprinted by permission of the author, Gorman wrote:
"Dear LNC Colleagues,
I hope everything is going well at the meeting and I'm sorry I cannot attend.
I would like to have this report read before or during negotiations of Steve Dasbach's contract. We have been gathering this information recently and have not had time to fully evaluate its content. However, at the very least, I would ask that contract negotiations for Mr. Dasbach be postponed to the December meeting so that we will have time to research these matters more fully.
I believe that Chairman Lark's report on the Willis matter contains new evidence of further wrongdoing. As a former Presidential candidate I understood the evidence at once. The issues are rates and terms for mailing list rental.
1) The LNC has for many years rented its 'current membership list' at $125/1000 names. It did in 1995 when people were exploring a campaign for Mr. Cowan. It did this week, when Ed Thompson's campaign in Wisconsin rented the list.
What did Harry Browne pay? He paid 125/1000 in early January and early February 1996. But in late January, 1996 Harry was only charged $62.50/1000, a rate no one else gets.
Here's a partial quote from Chairman Lark's report, in which I have inserted a clarificatory footnote:
"According to invoice, campaign rented current member list for $1766.50 (14,132 names at $125/1000 names), lapsed member list for $1785.90 (17,859 names at $100/1000 names), and paid a charge of $15.50 to FEDEX something on behalf of Michael Cloud. Invoice paid on Jan. 23, 1996.
Invoice from LP to Browne campaign for $3343.00 on Jan. 17, 1996. According to invoice, campaign rented the current member list for $833.25 (14,132 names at $62.50/1000 names), the current member list for $833.25 (14,132 names at $62.50/1000 names), the current member list for $833.25 (14,132 names at $62.50/1000 names), and the current member list for $833.25 (14,132 names at $62.50/1000 names), and paid a charge of $10.00 to FEDEX something on behalf of Michael Cloud. [GP: that's four rentals of one list, matching the $3343 in the invoice.]
Invoice from LP to Browne campaign for $1865.75 on Feb. 6, 1996.
According to invoice, campaign rented current member list for $1865.75 (14,926 names at $125/1000 names)."
We see here one rate for Mr. Browne, another for everyone else, as set by Mr. Willis. Someone appears to owe the LNC $3333. And interest.
2) I have rented the 'current member list' myself. I know other people who rented it. The payment terms are always 'cash in advance'. Those were the terms given my own campaign. Those were the terms quoted Mr. Cowan's 1995 exploratory effort before he decided not to run. I was very surprised to read Chairman Lark's statement about Browne's unpaid mailing list invoices:
"The invoices from January, February, March, April, and June were paid (total: $11185.01) on July 3, 1996. At this time, one cannot conclude from this information that the Browne campaign received special treatment, because as far as we can ascertain there are no clear examples of other enterprises or campaigns that received different treatment. However, it appears that the national office under Mr. Willis' direction exercised a considerable degree of forbearance concerning the Browne campaign's list rental payment performance in the first six months of 1996."
No clear examples of different treatment? Mr. Chairman, I did not receive a six-month "loan", and every other enterprise or campaign we have checked that rented those lists got different, less favorable treatment, going back from this week through to living memory of 1993.
Don Gorman
LNC Member-at-Large"
In writing this, Gorman of course understood that LNC, Inc. is a large, complicated organization, with 4 National Officers, 5 At-Large members, 9 Regional Representatives, 9 Alternates, paid staffers, interns, contractors,... It was exceedingly likely that some of them did not know what was going on. Blaming everyone without exception for not blowing the whistle is not appropriate, even though the de facto loan was a matter of public record in a report filed under penalty of perjury. Nonetheless, Lark's report made clear that the Browne campaign was allowed to pay in July for a January mailing, without paying interest. Given Willis's observation that the Browne campaign in this period was in a state of financial exigency, the loan may have been a major assist to Browne's campaign plans.
Gorman has told me that representations were made to him at an LNC meeting by members of the National Staff claiming that the special rate was a discount for the extensive list purchases by the Browne campaign. However, when he asked what the requirements were for getting the discount, no one on the LNC or Staff at the meeting had an answer. Furthermore, the existence of this quantity list deduction is not mentioned in any LNC statement sent to other Presidential candidates, including Gorman. The LNC has had a 'net name' policy, under which candidates do not pay for names that they already have on their own donor lists; however, it is extremely unlikely that Browne knew exactly 1/2 of the names on the LNC list. It is then challenging to see how the discounted rate could have arisen from an orthodox LNC rental policy.
The reduced-rate rental was not a loan. It was a direct cash subsidy of $3333 from LNC, Inc. to Harry Browne’s 1996 campaign. No matter who approved the subsidy, the special rate violated National Committee Rules and policies as published to other candidates. The reduced rate was a gift in kind from the LNC to the Browne campaign. Neither the LNC nor the Browne Campaign ever reported this gift in kind in their FEC filings, so supporters of Ohmen, Schiff, and Tompkins never learned about it.
In 2000, Lark had been elected to the LNC as the supported candidate of Browne, Cloud, and company. He was widely viewed as a likeable college professor, a model southern gentleman, but not a man who was likely to make waves. His investigation of the Browne scandal was shallow. He sent inquiries to the involved parties, who failed to respond. He piled up enormous files – largely multiple repetitions of the text of his questions—by asking similar questions of other people who might have had answers. After I specifically called to the LNC’s attention the anomalies in Browne’s spending on mailing lists, Lark and staff were able to go through the record and determine when the campaign had made payments.
And there Lark stopped. He had gone through the appropriate motions of asking questions, but presented no significant analysis of the data he generated. His reported position was that he had made inquiries, but that the full LNC should investigate. His investigation was frustrated by the unwillingness of at least some parties on each side of the dispute to reveal what they knew. Lark at first said there was no evidence showing that the LNC’s loans and gifts to the Browne campaign constituted special treatment of Browne. When Gorman produced such evidence, there was no response. It should have been entirely possible to examine the LNC’s files over several presidential election cycles, to determine what rates were quoted in correspondence to other Presidential campaigns. This examination was not performed. Instead, Lark made a pro forma investigation but not a serious forensic study. Lark had been elected by the Browne-Cloud-Willis faction of the Party, which now refused to assist in his inquiries. When it became apparent that the faction had been involved in serious irregularities amounting to substantial diversion of LNC resources to aid the Browne campaign, Lark failed to conclude in the face of Gorman's clear evidence that the Browne campaign had received special treatment.
Division in the Libertarian National Committee
National Committee votes on the three resolutions on the Browne scandal and on the elections to fill vacancies in the National Committee showed a deep division within the 2000-2002 National Committee. Deep division represents positive change. Past National Committees had been uncritical of information presented by the Dasbach-Willis-Bergland leadership clique. For example, the 1998-2000 National Committee was given a ‘Strategic Plan’ that called for the LP being seen as serious challengers to take control of Congress before 2010, an image so remote from reality that one might have expected the Committee to take some exception. After all, for most of the 1970s the Republican Party was not seen as being a serious contender to take control of Congress. The Committee did not take exception. Presented with the same Plan, the 2000-2002 National Committee would have subjected it to vigorous debate.
In 2000 the factions were clearly visible. Representing the policies and directions of the past decade as led by Harry Browne, David Bergland, Perry Willis, and Michael Cloud were LNC members Bisson, Dixon, Givot, Hoch, Israel, Karlan, Lieberman, and Rutherford. Representing new directions are Kaneshiki, Gaztanaga, Gorman, Schwartz (at this meeting, Milsted), and Nelson. National Chair James Lark was the groomed candidate of the forces of the past decade. His election—writing as an eyewitness who ran against Lark for National Chair—received their active support. In the middle are Dehn, Gilson (at this meeting, Scherrey) and Turney. Milsted has since moved out of his region and been replaced by Della Croft of Pennsylvania. Neither faction is rock solid. Outrage over the Browne nomination scandal overcame other loyalties.
Efforts to Drive Kaneshiki From the National Committee
In a divided committee with a regular turnover of membership, one way to improve the position of your faction is to engineer the replacement of your opponents with your supporters. The forces of the past decade, or some of their members, appeared in 2001 to have targeted Lois Kaneshiki for replacement. In late 2001 I was sent by friends the text of an electronic mail message purportedly from LNC member Steve Givot, threatening to subject Kaneshiki with expulsion from the National Committee. Kaneshiki, who in 2000 ran for the National Committee as part of The Clean Slate, had been a regular critic of National Party operations. Kaneshiki informs me that she received three such threats in a single year from 2000-2002 National Officers.
Most Libertarians first heard of the events preceding the threat through the lpus-misc@dehnbase.org email list. LNC Alternate Representative Tom Knapp was responding to an attack on himself by LNC Alternate Representative Dan Wisnosky. Wisnosky complained that Knapp lobbied in the corridors rather than sitting in a meeting in which he could not vote. Knapp responded on the same list:
“I (Knapp) wonder what the state chairs of your (Wisnosky’s) Region would think of your discussion at Yanni's (the bar next door to the Marriott Suites, where the LNC meeting was held), on the evening of the 25th of August and/or the early morning of the 26th of August, involving yourself and three LNC members, as well as the executive director of the LP of Nevada, the topic of which was how to force the resignation of another LNC member?”
First response came from former Nevada LP Executive Director Chris Azzaro, who said “I just want to make sure that everyone on this list is clear that I am NOT the Nevada executive director.”...“(The Executive Director is) is Kat Schlesinger, who was appointed to that position last week, and is Dan Wisnosky's girlfriend.”
Libertarian columnist Della Croft, who has since been elected to the National Committee as an Alternate Representative, added “It amazes me that Mr. Wisnosky had the time to keep such meticulous records of Mr. Knapp's activities given the amount of time he devoted to obvious eye rolls and looks of irritation every time Ms. Kaneshiki spoke.’’
In a separate comment, Azzaro added:
“Actually, I was amazed at the amount of disrespect that was shown to Ms. Kaneshiki throughout the meeting. Towards the end, several LNC members were openly laughing out loud while Lois was speaking about serious issues. I found that to be very disappointing and unprofessional. Regardless of whether one agrees with another person’s ideas, or even finds them ridiculous, every person on the LNC (or any other similar LP committee) deserves to be treated with respect and courtesy.”
A further post revealed Knapp’s source:
“I am Della Croft. I am also the person that overheard the conversation concerning Ms. Kaneshiki at Yanni's bar the weekend of the LNC meeting...I attended the LNC meeting as an average LP member working in the trenches...
“I felt that Ms. Kaneshiki was treated very unkindly during the course of both sessions. As pointed out to Mr. Azzaro in a previous post to this list, LNC members actually snickered and rolled their eyes as Ms. Kaneshiki spoke. I seriously doubt that any of them can recall the substance of her statements or could intelligently refute them because they were too involved in playground antics. Common courtesy should be the least we can expect at these meetings. I complained bitterly to Mr. Knapp and, upon my return home, to Mr. Famularo and Mr. Sturzenacker about what I perceived as a boy's club attempting to bully the only girl...
“Late Saturday evening/early Sunday morning, I joined Mr. Knapp, Mr. Lark, Ms. Ramirez, Mr. Hayes at a bar called Yanni's. Shortly after we sat down, another group came to sit at the table next to us. Our tables were quite close and I do not suffer from hearing loss so it was not a strain to hear what was being discussed. The first remarks I heard were complaints from a woman about Ms. Kaneshiki's criticism of the Strategic Plan. The second remark was, "We should force her to resign." That remark caused me to look over my shoulder and at that point I identified Mr. Wisnosky as the source of the statement. I was also able to identify Ms. Schlesinger as the source of the previous remark. The next remark came from an unknown male voice who said that it will have to wait until the convention next year...”
Wisnosky has categorically denied making the statement. Wisnosky has since resigned from the National Committee.
In a message dated August 30, 2001, purported to be from National Secretary Steve Givot to Lois Kaneshiki and supplied to me by LNC sources, preceding such remarks as “... ignorance has never stopped Lois Kaneshiki from forming a conclusion...Lois crossed the line and impugned the integrity of others—truly good people—based on the mountain of fecal material she has built in her mind..”, one finds (directed by Givot at Kaneshiki):
“Since you are not part of SPT (having reneged on your commitment, I'll note), you are not part of the marketing plan or its implementation.
“I understand that you all but threatened the LNC not to send anyone into PA to attempt to market the plan. That speaks volumes about your willingness to permit the other leaders of LPPA to reach their own, independent conclusions about the value of the strategic plan. It also smacks of censorship, bureaucracy, dictatorship, and—horror of all horrors—TOP DOWN management within LPPA.
“Unless you are trying to undermine the efforts of the LNC to market the plan, I cannot imagine why you would have ANY interest whatsoever in what we are doing to market it.
“And if you are trying to undermine the efforts of the LNC to market the plan, I'll be the person making the motion to remove you from the LNC for cause.”
Our other sources report that the LNC voted “to take the plan to the affiliate's executive committees to seek input and comments.” Seeking input on the plan and marketing it to state committees apparently overlap as activities, at least in the eyes of some LNC members.
In November, 2001 LNC Secretary Steve Givot reopened his attacks on LNC At-Large Member Lois Kaneshiki. Givot concluded a huge, widely-circulated missive:
“I have served on many boards of directors, however I have never seen a more egregious act by a fellow board member than Ms. Kaneshiki has demonstrated in authoring this article [GP: a heavily-edited article under Kaneshiki's name in Liberty magazine.]
In the best of cases, Ms. Kaneshiki is not capable of accurately recalling and accurately referencing matters of fact. If this is the case, we have a director on our board who is a loose cannon—someone willing to make public statements which have no relation to reality and which potentially can damage the organization.
In the worst of cases, Ms. Kaneshiki is deliberately dishonest and willfully attempting to harm the organization.
So, I pose the question, can the LNC afford to continue to have a board member who—through either incompetent or malice—poses a threat to the health of the organization?
I don't think so.
If any of you is interested in pursuing this discussion, please contact me privately."
The Membership Responds
During the 2000 campaign, there had been repeated warnings that all was not as well as might have been hoped with Browne's campaign. A series of pointed letters from Bumper Hornberger, all given wide electronic distribution, had outlined issues of concern. Liberty Magazine gave significant coverage to Libertarian party issues. Writing prior to the revelation of the Willis Invoice and Willis’s confession, Liberty Magazine concluded that the worst of the accusations against Browne and Willis were not proven by the record. At the 2000 National Convention, Browne faced significant opposition from three (four, counting Hornberger's on-again, off-again campaign) other Presidential candidates. National polling data showed Browne stuck well below the voter support levels he had proposed to attain. In November 2000, many Libertarians went to the polling places with a sense of foreboding, a sense that proved well justified by events.
Even before the Browne-Willis scandal erupted, National Party members were aware that the 2000 Presidential campaign had done poorly. There had been expectations raised that the 2000 Browne campaign would be substantially stronger than his 1996 campaign. After all, Browne had a larger, more experienced staff. He raised much more money. Fundraising letters spoke of a coherent plan to deploy television advertising. Despite all these changes, Browne did substantially worse in 2000 than he did in 1996.
Party members began voting with their feet. Historically, Party membership had often climbed in election years, sometimes dramatically. In 2000, Party membership was substantially flat. In 2001, Party membership crashed, falling from over 33,000 at its 2000 peak to under 28,000 at the start of 2002. The fall continued into 2002; Party membership at this writing is down to 24,000.
At the same time, mass direct mail recruiting programs lost their effectiveness. In late 2001, a 250,000 piece recruiting mailing was sent to traditionally fruitful mailing lists. Extremely light returns were obtained. Only a few hundred new members—not all due to the mailing—appeared in either of the subsequent months.
Party members and donors also voted with their wallets. In 2001, fundraising efforts imploded. Returns on house letters—the fundraising letters sent to all members every few months—did particularly poorly. According to my LNC sources, the last letter of 2001, at least in the part sent to non-select contributors, barely broke even. The National Committee raised 2.1 million dollars in 2001. Efforts were made to blame weak second-half fundraising on the September air and biological attacks on Washington and New York. Second-half fundraising was about as strong as first-half fund raising. In contrast, in the previous non-election year—1999—second-half fund raising was markedly weaker than first-half fund raising. Unlike membership in the LPUS, the membership of the ACLU rose dramatically after September 2001. The September events therefore did not necessarily harm the membership of pro-liberty organizations. Claims that September events caused the Party’s membership and donations to decline must therefore be viewed with suspicion. In comparing with years of the more distant past, it is important to remember that LNC income is inflated by state party dues collected by the National Committee under the Unified Membership Program. Prior to 1996, money raised by the LNC was all spent on its own direct operations. That income now includes substantial sums raised on behalf of state parties.
The Continuing Story
We are at the end of my description of the 1996 and 2000 Presidential campaigns. It is a sad tale. We should be the Party of Principle. We seem instead to be behaving as the Party of Principal, with interest to inside traders.
In 2002 the Libertarian Party was significantly divided. One faction proposed that it was time to stop talking about the scandals and move on, leaving in place most of the people whose votes and endorsements gave us the 1996 and 2000 scandals. Another faction proposes that it was time to stop supporting the scandal-makers and move on, replacing the leadership that gave us the 1996 and 2000 scandals with leadership that will restore integrity and propriety to the National party. That decision was up to the membership of the National Party.
In July 2002 through their delegates to the National Convention the membership chose Geoffrey Neale as National Chair. Neale had been an LNC member during some of the worst scandals. He had not been visible as a voice raising concerns about known events. On the other hand, the faction that had loyally supported Browne, Cloud, Willis, Bergland, Ayres, Dasbach and collaborators supported not Willis but Eli Israel, state chair of Massachusetts. Despite powerful nominating speeches by Harry Browne and Chris Azarro, Israel finished second and withdrew from the contest.
All the time the factional disagreements continued, yet another group of Libertarians have been hard at work, taking steps visibly aimed at replacing Browne 2004 with the Presidential candidacy of a very different Libertarian, a Libertarian with a different name, a different origin, but a record of campaign spending style very similar to that of Browne and company. Given that the prospective campaign manager has already announced at a state convention that the Presidential candidacy announcement will come, albeit later rather than sooner, there is very little left to doubt.
For the sequel opener, we take you now to...