Funding Liberty! Table of Contents
Funding Liberty!
Chapter 27
Building Toward 2004
A Browne Campaign Without Browne
In 2000, it cannot have escaped the attention of the cabals surrounding Presidential candidate Browne, National Chair Bergland, and their collaborators that a third Presidential campaign by the same candidate would be even less convincing than the first two campaigns had been. Furthermore, Browne was not that young. Even if he were willing to run for President again in 2004, it could not simply be assumed by his coterie that in another four years Browne would be physically able to rise to the intense rigors of a coast-to-coast national political effort. For a wide range of reasons, there was a possible need for an alternative candidate.
One path to finding such a candidate was floated by Perry Willis. Willis proposed using a Libertarian foundation as a way to develop spokesmen as potential Presidential candidates. Willis broached his proposal in early 2001, and appears to have been well on his way to developing it when John Famularo published the Willis Invoice.
Enter Howell
An alternative path requires that the campaign be handed a suitable potential candidate on a silver platter. Massachusetts's 1998 statewide election was the platter. Carla Howell received 5% of the vote in a three-way race for State Auditor. She had handled herself well in her campaign. Her campaign revealed no significant difficulties with her presentation or background. She was closely tied to the Massachusetts Libertarian establishment, which could be counted on to provide her with a substantial cadre of experienced campaigners. Finally, she was the close personal friend of Libertarian fundraiser and speaker Michael Cloud, so she had direct ties to the Browne-Bergland coterie.
Browne had run for President on the basis of no prior political experience. Come 2004, Howell could be seen as a much stronger candidate than Browne had been, because by 2004 she would have run several successful (by Libertarian standards) campaigns for lower office. For better or worse, Massachusetts politics would provide the needed opportunities. There would be a Senate Race in 2000, and Senate and Gubernatorial races in 2002. The Massachusetts Republican Party was extremely weak, making it easier for Howell to capture a substantial fraction of the vote from voters unfrightened by the 'wasted vote' superstition.
Howell was the (relatively) strong candidate of a (relatively ) strong Libertarian state party. It may well have come as a surprise to many Libertarians when they learned that her 2000 Senate campaign would have collapsed without extensive support from the National Party, support on a scale given in 2000 to no other Senate candidate.
In early 2000, reports on Internet mail lists indicated that the National Party had paid National Voter Outreach (NVO), a petitioning organization located in Carson City, Nevada, $20,000 or so to do petitioning for the Howell campaign. FEC filings for the National Party ("Libertarian National Committee, Inc.") do indeed show payments to NVO including $7500 on January 26, $12180 on March 1, and $5000 on March 16, 2000. On May 10, 2000, the National Party also paid Kay Pirrello of 6 Goodman Lane, Wayland, Massachusetts $500 for petitioning. 6 Goodman Lane is Carla Howell's address in Wayland. Kay Pirrello, at the same address, was the Howell Campaign Volunteer Coordinator. The FEC filings do not identify the campaign for which petitioning was being done.
When I publicly challenged the rationale for spending the money, writing
Another future letter deals with some interesting spending. It seems that your National Party spent $20,000, give or take, perfectly legally, to help one of our candidates get on the ballot. It's in the FEC reports and my source is unimpeachable. It's not a winnable race. It's not the highest profile race for its office. It's not a ballot access race. Even winning that election would not make it one iota easier for our future candidates in that state to get on the ballot. So why did we spend the money?
I received a response from LNC National Director Steve Dasbach, who wrote on June 5, 2000:
The Massachusetts U.S. Senate race IS a ballot access race. 3% will continue to qualify the LP as a major party in Massachusetts.
I know you are opposed to the LP being a major party in Massachusetts. However, the LP leadership in Massachusetts rejects your position and supports major party status. Our responsibility is to support the efforts of our state parties.
FYI: We have spent significant sums of money helping LP candidates for US House with filing fees—we have also helped raise funds directly for candidates for that purpose.
Steve Dasbach
Dasbach's response to me, and other sources, unambiguously identified the NVO payments as going to the Howell Campaign.
Dasbach's claim that Howell's Senate race was a ballot access race was untrue. A ballot access race is a campaign whose successful outcome improves ballot access status for our candidates. For example, by winning small percentages of the vote in past elections, our top-of-ticket candidate in Indiana made it possible for State or County Parties to place other Libertarian candidates on the ballot with a nominating convention or stroke of the pen. Howell's race did nothing of the kind. In Massachusetts, "Major Party Status" does not help ballot access. No matter whether Howell received 100 votes or 100% of the vote, in 2002 our Massachusetts candidates would need to collect exactly the same number of signatures. However, "Major Party" status makes it far more difficult to collect those signatures. Howell's Senate race was actually a ballot denial race, a race that raised the bar for our other candidates. The National Party spent $20,000 on a program whose chief effect if it succeeded would be to reduce ballot access for Massachusetts Libertarians.
Early National Committee support for Howell 2000 stood in stark contrast to its lack of early support for other Federal candidates. There were a few Federal candidates for whom the National Committee paid 'ballot access' fees, payments of a few hundred or thousand dollars charged by individual states for the privilege of having one's name on the ballot. Based on the LNC Political Director's report for December 2000, Howell was the only Libertarian candidate other than Browne to receive more than a couple of thousand dollars in support from the National Party. Howell received more than ten times as much.
Tuniewicz Speaks
Substantial evidence that Howell received undue support from the Bergland-Browne faction of the National Party was provided by former National Treasurer Mark Tuniewicz. Writing in an email message sent on Wednesday, June 13, 2001 to members of the Libertarian National Committee and others, Tuniewicz discussed the LNC and third-party intermediaries. Tuniewicz was responding to a recent missive by Jacob Hornberger, criticizing the National Party, and claiming that Tuniewicz had yet to answer certain questions. Hornberger referred to Tuniewicz by saying
“LNC members serving on the Bylaws Committee included LP National Treasurer Mark A. Tuniewicz, who recently and without explanation resigned his post and his membership in the party and who so far has declined to come forward and disclose whether or not he has information about the use of third-party intermediaries to funnel money to third-party beneficiaries."
Tuniewicz responded:
“With the exception of the recent disclosures by Mssrs. Famularo, Willis & Browne, I don't recall LNC, Inc. or the Browne campaign utilizing 3rd party intermediaries to funnel money to third-party beneficiaries ...with one exception:
In the first quarter of 2000 LNC, Inc. paid about $20,000 in two payments to petitioning firm National Voter Outreach on behalf of the Carla Howell for Senate campaign after having received a similar-sized soft money contribution from a generous Massachusetts donor. The first of these payments took place on 1/26/00, just five days after the donation was received. The payments in question were made on the authority of National Director Steve Dasbach and without the knowledge of any LNC officer, including myself and to my knowledge then-National Chair David Bergland.
The issue in this case, raised by me after learning of the transaction several weeks later, was whether or not it constituted an illegal "directed" contribution—whereby a campaign solicits a soft money contribution payable to a national political party while making clear that the donation is to be "passed through" or "directed" to the benefit of a federal candidate's campaign, presumably in violation of individual contributor limits.
Interestingly, during one of the executive committee teleconferences where this transaction was discussed, then-chair Bergland repeatedly attempted to move the discussion into a closed, executive session. Since this would have prevented me from disclosing information about it (as I'm doing in this message, for example)to our membership, I strongly opposed this and had to threaten to leave the conference call if that was done—a fairly extreme situation.
While our general counsel later gave a verbal opinion at my request that the transaction was legal "given the current state of campaign finance enforcement," I continue to question some the facts upon which he based his opinion-facts provided by Mr. Dasbach.
For example, Mr. Dasbach denied knowing who had solicited the $20K contribution, which I found to be hard to believe, and claimed that the decision to fund the ballot access expense (originally classified on the LNC's books as "campaign support" then changed later to "ballot access" after the transaction was questioned) was made independently from the contribution, despite the coincidence of dates and the fact that the expenditure was not part of our ballot access budget presented just a short time prior in 12/99.
In the interest of full disclosure, my recollection from discussions at the time is that Massachusetts LP state chair Elias Israel, as well as Howell campaign manager Michael Emerling Cloud, were both aware of this transaction around the time it was happening.
Other than this item, I don't recall any use of intermediaries from 1996 when I joined the LNC through the end of my term as National Treasurer earlier in 2001. I'd like to stress that these issues have absolutely nothing to do with my resignation as Treasurer and from the LP. Any suggestion to the contrary is libelous. I strongly recommend that Mr. Hornberger share this message, it its entirety, with his email distribution list, so as to correct any misconceptions his readers may have inferred from his prior message.
With best wishes,
Mark A. Tuniewicz"
The LNC payments to NVO were a direct violation of LNC Policy. According to Tuniewicz, the payments were at first kept on the books as "campaign support" and then redesignated as "ballot access". No matter how named, LNC Policy forbids the National Party to give support to anyone who is seeking nomination but is not yet the Party candidate. The payment was in January. On that date, Howell was seeking the nomination. The State convention was not until April. The State Primary was not until September. Howell might well have had opponents within the party, and thus might not have been the Party's candidate on the November ballot. The LNC payments to NVO constituted Party support for a candidate seeking a nomination and were therefore in violation of LNC rules.
Writing on November 27, 2002 to lpus-misc@dehnbase.org, Tuniewicz reiterated this position, saying in part:
"...over the years, before & after
adoption of the current policy, the National Director authorized payments to
assist candidates in getting on the ballot, helping the LP to achieve its
candidate goals. My understanding is that these were typically of a small
dollar amount....up to a couple hundred dollars, in essence a filing fee of
sorts.
"After the policy change took place, it was *clear*....certainly to me...that
direct or indirect campaign support to prenomination candidates was
prohibited. PERIOD. I respectfully disagree with anyone who feels differently.
"The only exception that I can recall: In states where no primary or convention
nomination methodology existed, the say-so of the state chair was typically
sufficient to indicate that the candidate was the "nominated" one.
"I continue to have serious misgivings about this transaction, including the
manner in which the *characterization* of the transaction was changed on the
Party's books (from campaign support to ballot access), and the size of the
contribution (as Mr. Phillies points out, our 2nd largest that year) given the
Party's other serious financial needs at the time."
Tuniewicz suggests that the payments may also have been improper because they might have constituted an illegal 'directed' contribution, a soft-money contribution made to a party with the specific understanding that the money would be channeled to a named candidate. Possible evidence suggesting this possibility includes (i) the payments were made soon after the LNC 'received a similar-size soft-money contribution from a Massachusetts donor', (ii) the National Director claimed not to have known who solicited the donation, but (iii) Massachusetts State LP Chair Eli Israel and Howell Campaign CEO Michael Cloud 'were both aware of the transaction about the time it was happening', and (iv) the Massachusetts donor also gave substantially to the Howell campaign by direct means.
A variety of Federal Election Commission regulations appear related to the NVO spending for Howell: A national party committee may legally receive up to $20,000 from any contributor other than another multicandidate committee, so the contribution was in principle legal to receive. However, a contribution to a party committee counts against the contributor's contribution limit to the candidate (here, $1,000) if the contributor knows that a substantial part of his contribution will be spent on behalf of a particular candidate. Furthermore, a National Party Committee may contribute no more than $17,500 to a U.S. Senate candidate during the entire election period (primary and general elections.) In-kind contributions such as gifts of goods or services count against contribution limits in the same way as a gift of money. Finally, when a national party committee makes an in-kind donation the donor committee must notify the recipient committee of the amount of the contribution, so that the recipient committee can report the correct amount.
National Party Committees may also make "coordinated party expenditures" in connection with the general election campaigns of federal candidates. Coordinated expenditures are reported only by the Party committee, not by the candidate committee. There is a legal limit on the extent of these contributions, but for Massachusetts, the legal limit on coordinated expenditures is much larger than the amount given by the LNC to Howell. However, coordinated expenditures may only be made as part of a general election campaign, not as part of the primary election campaign.
Tuniewicz does not entirely specify the legal questions about which he was concerned. There appears to be a range of possible issues. The legal maximum limit on party committee donations to Senate candidates is only $17,500, but more seems to have been given. Careful reading of Howell's FEC filings finds no indication that the Howell campaign reported either the NVO expenditure or the other expenditures, as would be required if the expenditure had been an in-kind donation to her campaign.. Coordinated Party Expenditures are not subject to the $17,500 limit or the candidate committee filing requirement, but refer only to the general election, not to the primary election that was under consideration here.
"Ballot Access" Contributions are not legally limited. However, within FEC regulations "ballot access" funds are funds that _must_ by state law be paid directly to the state in order to place a candidate on the ballot. Massachusetts does not require "Ballot Access" payments from candidates. Finally, in the hypothetical but legal case that the donor knew where much of his money was going, the transfer would have been a directed donation, and directed donations are legally limited to the amount that an individual could have given directly to the candidate.
It is perhaps surprising that the National Director did not know who had solicited the 'soft-money contribution from a Massachusetts donor.' From the LP FEC report for January, the donation described by Tuniewicz would appear to be from Robert Willis of Mendon, Massachusetts, who identified himself as the President of Alpine Computer Systems, Inc. My search of the Party's FEC filings for 2000 report that the Party's major donations in 2000 were $50,000, $20,000, $15,000, $10,000, and two donations of $5000. Willis's gift thus appears to have been the second largest donation the LP received in all of 2000, an act of extraordinary generosity for which all Libertarians should be appropriately grateful. One might have expected under the circumstances here that the National Director would have been more curious about the donor and whoever had solicited the contribution.
The complete details as to how the National Party supported its candidates around the country appear in the Political Director's report to the LNC for December 2000. For the year, the National Party made very modest donations to support candidates for local office, including $2000 to Bonnie Flickinger, $1000 each to James Dan and Cameron DeJong, $500 each to Dale Ritchey and Mary Lou Nowe, and $600 to Jim Richardson. Dan got 45% of the vote in a two-way race; Richardson got 30% of the vote in a 3-way race.
The Libertarian Party also launched a campaign for matching funds for Congressional Candidates, spending $43,000 on nine Congressional candidates. Other candidates inquired about matching funds, but by then the National Party was out of money. The campaign required that the candidate make a $5000 ad purchase, which the National Party would then match. Unfortunately for candidates, the widely-circulated announcement of the program came very late in the election cycle—a fundraising announcement reached here in October—making it nearly impossible for a typical Libertarian campaign to take advantage of the program.
Finally, in the section of his report on Ballot Access, the LPUS Political Director reports having spent $22,167.50 in the Ballot Access 2000 effort for the Carla Howell Senate campaign. Relative to the other campaigns that the LPUS supported, the support for Howell is grotesquely disproportionate. Several other anomalies are apparent in the Report.
Anomalies? The entire remainder of the Chapter in the Political Director's report refers to efforts to put the Presidential candidate on the ballot, and efforts to qualify other candidates in order to improve the Party's Ballot Access Status in that state. Howell was running for U.S. Senate, not President. None of our other U.S. Senate candidates received anything like $22,000 from the National Party. Three of our Senate candidates (Emerson Ellett—NJ, Michael Corliss—MI, Tim Peterson—WI) did receive $5,000 or so in matching funds. Ellet, Corliss, and Peterson got the money very much at the end of their campaigns, when the money would be least effective. Howell received her money early in the campaign, when money talks the loudest. Nor was Howell's campaign relevant to ballot access. No matter the outcome of her effort, Massachusetts candidates would still be able to run with "Libertarian" by their ballot entry, and Massachusetts voters would still be entitled to register "Libertarian". So why did Howell get so much money?
The Georgia State Convention
Rumors were to continue that Howell was being groomed as a 2004 Presidential candidate. These rumors were confirmed at the 2001 Georgia State Libertarian Party convention. As described to me by Donald Gorman:
"Saturday, April 28 , was a busy day, with a New Bedford, MA campaign seminar and flight to Atlanta to the Georgia LP Convention. At the Convention, I gave 60 people a two-hour preview of my Campaign School for Winners, to be held in Atlanta on June 9-10.
"It was fun meeting many new, energetic people from Georgia, and catching up on the latest news from Art Olivier, who spoke at the Convention. Dave Nolan and David Bergland were both in attendance as guest speakers. Unfortunately, arriving so late on Saturday night, I missed their speeches. Instead, I happened to walk in just as Michael Cloud was in the middle of his "Carla for Governor" fund-raiser. Cloud assured the crowd that this was for the Carla Howell for Governor race, not the Carla Howell for President race, but that the audience would hear more on that later."
LP News Coverage in 2001 and 2002
More than one Libertarian has remarked upon the slanted coverage given by LP News in 2000-2002 to Libertarian candidates. Some candidates receive massive coverage, while others are largely ignored. It will be recalled that during the period in question the Editor of LP News was Bill Winter, who in 1996 was in the pay of the Browne campaign, and who, according to documents released by John Famularo, was involved with mailings sent to the inner circle managing Browne's 1996 campaign.
From August 2001 to August 2002 LP News ran a half-dozen articles about Howell's campaign, including her associated get-out-the-vote tax-cut referendum question. This includes a Page 1 article in the August 2001 issue, another Page 1 article in the January 2002 issue, two articles (the first starting on Page 1) in the March 2002 issue, and articles in the July and August 2002 issue. The only other Libertarian candidate to receive as much attention was Ed Thompson, also running for Governor.
In contrast, the largest state party in the Union is that of California. California's candidate for Governor, Gary Copeland, was ignored by LP News, even before Copeland's State Party denounced him. Several statewide races in Fall 2002, such as Rebecca Sink-Burris's campaign for Secretary of State of Indiana (the second highest elected office in that state), were critical to ballot access. These races received only a trace of the attention given to Howell. Senate candidate Rick Stanley was covered by several articles, but these were related to his arrest and trial. Long-time Libertarian Party member and activist Bumper Hornberger ran for U.S. Senator from Virginia. While several articles covered his campaign, the May 2002 article was primarily a hit piece in which National Chair Jim Lark claimed that Hornberger had a "demonstrated lack of integrity". Lark did not supply evidence to justify his remarkable claim.
Howell, her referendum campaign, and her constant companion's Senate campaign also all ran full-page ads in LP News, month after month after month. Those ads were paid advertising bought with the funds willingly and voluntarily given Howell, the Small Government Campaign, and Michael Cloud to advance their electoral efforts. From the standpoint of convincing readers, though, paid publicity is no substitute for earned publicity. In the case at hand, one asks: What was being done to have earned the publicity?
In Summer 2002, Bill Winter announced his intent to step down as editor of LP News. He was put on part-time status, at full-time pay, while working from a remote site, to discharge debts the party owed him.
In 2002, the campaign groundswell for Carla Howell encountered a series of difficulties. Instead of a three-way race against a Democrat and a lame-duck Republican Acting Governor widely believed to be severely underqualified for her post, Howell found herself running against:
A popular Democrat, Shannon O'Brien, who had solid ties to the entire Democratic Party machine.
A well-known Republican, Mitt Romney, who could run as an outsider and point to his experience running the Olympics.
An effective Green Party speaker, Dr. Jill Stein
Flamboyant independent eccentric and father’s rights advocate Barbara Johnson.
In the end, despite spending vast sums of money, despite multiple debates against her four opponents, despite name recognition from her 2000 race, Howell finished fourth. Howell received 23,044 votes, substantially fewer votes than the 31,790 votes received by Dean Cooke's minimally funded 1998 Libertarian campaign for the same office. Howell received fewer votes than the 24,898 received by Randall Forsberg, who ran in 2002 as a last-minute write-in candidate for U. S. Senate against Democrat Senator Kerry and Libertarian Michael Cloud. As was correctly predicted a year in advance by Massachusetts libertarian activist Craig Matthias:
"I'm going to predict here that Carla will be utterly humiliated in the Governor's race. She did well against a weak Republican in the Senate contest (and, as weak as he was, he still beat her), but against strong Democratic and Republican candidates this year, she will get creamed...."