Let Me Defend the Johnson Campaign

You know I don't do that very often, right?

A very nice summation of the "story" here at Brand New (hat tip: Warren Redlich, publisher of Independent Political Report):

Two months ago, Tampa, FL-based SPARK published on its online quarterly publication a conceptual, speculative identity for 2016 Libertarian Party U.S. presidential nominee, Gary Johnson. In the short time since, his campaign has adopted the concept without consent (aka 'stolen the work') from Spark.

Yes, you read that right:

• Some guys publicly, and without any solicitation from the campaign, suggested that the campaign do X;
• The campaign did X;
• The guys now think they were "stolen" from.

Or, as SPARK CEO Tony Miller puts it at Bay News 9 (also h/t Warren):

I think there was some surprise that they hadn't contacted us first and said "hey, do you mind if we use this" or "hey, we are going to use this" ... I think they are probably using that thinking it was out there in the public domain for them to use and probably don't have a full understanding (of what) creative license is all about ... You just can't take somebody's work without permission or without potentially paying for it.

SPARK produced a cute little video accusing the Johnson campaign of "swiping" their offering (h/t Joe Buchman, also of IPR):




So ...

Would  publicly crediting SPARK with making a useful suggestion have been the nice thing to do? Yes.

Was not doing so a dick move? Well, sort of.

But I can't really work up any tears for SPARK.

They could have waited for the campaign to come to them for a proposal before creating one (unlikely, unless there were previously existing ties between the company and the campaign, but that's how it goes).

Or they could privately have worked up the proposal on unsolicited spec and offered it to the campaign with some kind of pre-disclosure agreement that if it was liked it would be bought, and that if it was not bought it would not be used. The campaign might not have agreed to look at it under those conditions, but again, that's how it goes.

Instead, they decided to loudly, publicly shout "HEY GARY JOHNSON, WHY DON'T YOU DO THIS?" in a self-promotional venue. That is, they were using the proposal to drum up business for themselves from potential clients other than the Johnson campaign. It was advertising by hypothetical demonstration. "Here's how good we are -- see, this is what we would be doing if we were doing this guy's campaign."

Now they are bellyaching that he did what they publicly said he should do ... without their permission? What the f**k?

And keep in mind that it's about 99% likely that Gary Johnson never saw SPARK's offering or had any idea that his campaign consultants or staffers had decided to run with a very similar theme until SPARK started griping about it.

What he likely saw was the final product. He's probably very surprised to learn that he's been paying good money to one company for work that another company had already done and published.

If I was Gary, I'd probably be firing someone over this, because I wouldn't want lazy, dishonest assholes charging me for other people's work and setting me up for public embarrassment.

And I'd probably be going ahead and publicly thanking SPARK for their freely, publicly offered work because that's the nice thing to do and it would cost me nothing to do it.

But if I was SPARK, I'd consider a name change, because after the shit they just pulled their name should be mud among potential clients.

Open to a Discussion About Looking Seriously ...

Gary Johnson has been in politics for more than two decades and has been running for president for five years now. At what point is he going to stop "being open to discussions about" or promising to "look seriously" at issues that are neither especially new nor especially complex?

Election 2016: Math vs. Path

In a previous post, I go over the concept of "on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected." For presidential candidates, the number representing "enough states" is either one or zero (zero reflecting the possibility of winning a state as a write-in). Since the US House of Representatives chooses the next president from among the top three recipients of electoral votes in the event that no candidate receives at least 270 electoral votes, carrying even one state (or even a congressional district in Maine or Nebraska) represents a possible, if narrow and rather implausible, path to the presidency.

I close that post out with:

Bonus question: How many states must a vice-presidential candidate win in order for it to be mathematically possible for that vice-presidential candidate to be elected?

Hint: It's a lot more complicated than the other question/answer set.

How much more complicated?

Well, in the event that no vice-presidential candidate receives 270 or more electoral votes, the next vice-president is chosen by the US Senate from among the top two recipients of electoral votes.

From a set of three contenders, what is the fewest number of electoral votes that a candidate can receive while (1) coming in second place (2) from a field in which precisely three candidates receive electoral votes, while (3) holding the first place finisher to fewer than 270 electoral votes?

The answer, if my math is right, is 135.

If the first place finisher receives 269 votes and the second place finisher receives 135 votes, that leaves 134 votes for the third place finisher. Obviously the first place finisher could receive fewer than 269, or the second place more than 135, but like I said, 135 appears to be the absolute minimum number to get into a Senate-decided vice-presidential selection process by making the top two cut from among three contenders.

This means that the absolute minimum number of states that contender would have to win would be four. If a vice-presidential candidate won the electoral votes of California and Texas, that would bring in 93 electoral votes. The next two heaviest states are Florida and New York, with 29 each for a total of 151. Carrying only one of those two would leave the contender at 122, 13 electoral votes short, which could be made up for by carrying any one of eight states: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey or Virginia. Absent one of those, it's going to end up taking five or more states to reach the magic number.

There's a huge gap between the one electoral vote that could conceivably make a president in the House and the 135 electoral votes it would take to potentially make a vice-president in the Senate.

Vis a vis the Libertarian Party, that makes the path to the vice-presidency much narrower for William Weld than the path to the presidency for Gary Johnson. It seems nearly certain that even if Johnson pushes the election to the House and prevails there, he'll be saddled with Mike Pence or Tim Kaine as sidekick.

Vis a vis the Reform Party, it likely closes off the vice-presidential nominee's path completely. The party's ticket will be on the ballot in states disposing of 58 total electoral votes (New York and Florida), plus possibly Louisiana with 8, bringing the potential total to 66. Note I said it likely closes the path off completely. There might be opportunities to register and have write-in votes counted in enough states to get the total up to 135. But it looks like President Darcy Richardson would likewise probably have to make do with Pence or Kaine in second chair. But I'll still do my best.

The Two Gary Johnsons

Gary Johnson #1, in Politico today:

Creditors have been hurt as [Donald Trump] walked away from debts. Is that the kind of moral example that he would bring to the U.S. government -- finding ways to duck obligations?

That's not an academic question. He has pledged to tear up agreements and even concoct some scheme by which America could walk away from its debt -- just as he did in his business dealings. America doesn't do that.

Bill Weld and I believe that fiscal responsibility is at the core of what our government needs to do.

Gary Johnson #2, according to his 2012 campaign's most recent FEC report:

Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee: $1,538,118.73

One of these things is not like the other.

Mathematical Possibilities

Up front disclaimer: No, I'm not looking to pick on Gary Johnson in particular with this post. He's far from the first or only person to say something similar to what I'm going to quote him saying. He just happens to be some combination of the most recent/most prominent, having said it in the New York Times, and having said it this year, and being on of the principals in a lawsuit related to it. Here it is:

The contention is on our part that if you're on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected, then you should be included in the presidential debate.

Q: How many states does a candidate have to be on the ballot in for it to become mathematically possible for that candidate to be elected president?

A: None.

Here's a scenario featuring a way that Johnson himself could be elected:

This November, Gary Johnson carries one state. Let's just assume that that state is New Mexico, which comes with five electoral votes.

Now, let's say that Hillary Clinton carries California (55), New York (29), Florida (29), Michigan (16), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Washington (12), Virginia (13), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), Texas (38), and Vermont (3). No, those specific states aren't likely; they were just the ones I picked offhand to demonstrate the math. They come with a total of 268 electoral votes.

That leaves the remaining states, which come with 265 electoral votes, for Donald Trump.

If no candidate receives 270 votes in the Electoral College, the US House of Representatives picks the next president from the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Which means that Gary Johnson could conceivably become president.

But, then, so could Jill Stein, who will be on the ballot in a number of states. Maybe not enough states to win in the electoral college, but as long as she carries at least one state and only Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump end up with more electoral votes than she does, she is still eligible for consideration by the House.

For that matter, if a write-in candidate (in states that allow them) carried a single state while holding the major party candidates below 270 electoral votes each, ditto.

Mathematically, a candidate doesn't need to be on the ballot in a single state for it to be possible for that candidate to be elected president.

[Update, 07/19/16: As Shawn L points out in comments, a candidate wouldn't even have to carry a state to be eligible for election by the House -- Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes rather than assigning them "winner take all." So if (for example) a candidate got one electoral vote, and the other two candidates got 269 and 268 respectively,  all three would be eligible for election by the US House of Representatives. And now that I think about it, a "carried no states victory" could also occur under the auspices of one or more "faithless electors" - TLK]

Bonus question: How many states must a vice-presidential candidate win in order for it to be mathematically possible for that vice-presidential candidate to be elected?

Hint: It's a lot more complicated than the other question/answer set.

Addendum: This turned into a bit of a series. Check out Part 2 and Part 3.

GOP Delegate Revolt Schemes: A Bridge Too Far?

As I have pointed out (very briefly and not that worthy of lookup here at KN@PPSTER, and at more length/greater detail over at The Garrison Center), yes, a GOP delegate revolt to stop Donald Trump from becoming the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nominee is possible. And there's a group planning to do it just the way I outline it getting done. Whether or not it's likely to succeed is another question entirely.

But suppose it does succeed -- enough delegates abstain to deny Trump a first-ballot majority, after which the delegates are no longer bound to particular candidates. What then?

According to the convention rules, in order to be placed in contention for the nomination, a candidate must have carried eight states in the primaries/caucuses. Only one candidate other than Trump makes the cut: Ted Cruz.

Does a majority exist for Cruz?

If not, does a 2/3 majority exist to suspend the rules so that other candidates can be considered? That's obviously what John Kasich's fans (and probably Kasich himself) are hoping for.

Erick Erickson wants Cruz on the ticket, but as veep beneath Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.

I'm trying to figure out why Erickson -- or anyone else -- would expect that to fly in the real world.

Walker ran for president and fared so poorly in the debates, in the polls, and in fundraising, that he dropped out of the race more than four months before the first real test, the Iowa caucus.

Erickson writes off Walker's abysmal performance as a presidential candidate to a single mistake:

Walker's major mistake headed into his race was to put all his good people in his Super PAC then hire wildcards to run his campaign. He then could not communicate with the very people who had helped him win so many elections. It was a mistake not reversible once made and I don't think he should be penalized.

But it wasn't campaign organization mechanics that kept Walker in the cellar. At the time he dropped out, the main metric was debate performance. As a political careerist (he's been in one public office or another since 1993) he either knows how to convincingly win a public argument in a way that registers in the polls as presidential timbre or he isn't ever going to know how to do that. Coming off as more presidential than the other 15 people on the stage doesn't automatically create a fundraising juggernaut, effective ground games in Iowa and New Hampshire, etc. But not managing that is evidence that a candidate is trying to stop being a sow's ear and become a silk purse.

It seems to me that almost any GOP ticket, other than possibly Trump/?, is going to have trouble whipping Hillary Clinton in November, if for no other reason than that the fundraising game is well under way based on a nominee apparent. But Walker/Cruz seems purpose-built to lose.

If the will is there to suspend the rules and pick a ticket out of the blue, why not go all the way and draft the existing Republican ticket back into the party it really belongs to?

Early Predictions are Dangerous But I'm Sticking With Mine for Now

I don't know if I've even mentioned that early prediction here on KN@PPSTER yet, but here it is (I've been making it for a couple of months in various venues):

In November, assuming he's the GOP nominee (I still think a successful national delegate rebellion is just barely possible), Donald Trump will win every state that Mitt Romney won in 2012. He will also win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, he will at least be competitive in New York and New Jersey, and he may even put California in play.

Of course, it's not just early predictions that are dangerous, but any predictions involving Donald Trump. I didn't think he had a chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination. Every time he stumbled I figured he was going down for good. So if I'm making a mistake this time, it's the opposite mistake -- he's had a bad couple of weeks, but I expect him to turn things around.

The Hill's Jonathan Easley reports that even with Trump's slump, Clinton has failed to pull convincingly ahead in the ten "battleground" states where the election will likely (per the conventional wisdom, not per my prediction) be decided. Interesting. Even more interesting, though not fully explored:

Trump and Clinton both have historically high unfavorable ratings, opening the door for two outsider candidates -- Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein -- to potentially play spoiler.

When Johnson and Stein are considered in polls, the margin between Clinton and Trump almost invariably narrows.

See what's hinted at, but not actually said, there? As Matt Welch points out at Reason, when Johnson and Stein are included in polls, their inclusion hurts Clinton more than it hurts Trump. IIRC, even some polling that included only Johnson and not Stein shows Johnson hurting Clinton more than he hurts Trump. If there is a "spoiler effect" (yes, I hate the whole flawed concept, but that's how it gets reported), that effect seems to be pro-Trump.

I will be interested to see whether Johnson and/or Stein get enough votes to arguably affect the outcomes in any states. To the extent that they might do so, I expect that that effect would militate toward an outcome like the one I predict.

For Those Who Think I've Been Too Tough ...

... on Johnson and Weld, check out Jason Stapleton's show from June 23. Money quote from the description:

Above all else what bothers me the most about Gary J and Wild Bill is they are clearly unprepared and lack even a basic understanding of their police [sic] opinions. They have no pride in what they do or what they stand for. It's shameful we have these two man representing our ideas. No one voting in this election is going to know what libertarianism is. Even if Gary was a libertarian (and I contend his is not) he lacks either the desire or ability to explain his positions.

Shame on the LP for nominating these two clowns. Pray we don't get 15%. These men will be made to look like fools on a debate stage.

Now that is tough on Johnson and Weld.

And completely accurate.

Home Stretch Questions for Gary Johnson #5

Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson speaking at a Campaign for Liberty event at CPAC. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia)

Governor Johnson,

At OnTheIssues.Org, you are quoted to the following effect on federal spending and federal debt:

"I have proposed cutting the federal budget by 43 percent to bring it into balance. It can be done. It requires the will and ability to ignore and even fight the special interests that have a vested interest in more and more government spending." -- Washington Times, 02/02/12

"I'd avoid continually raising the debt ceiling by not incurring more debt!" -- 2011 Republican primary debate on Twitter.com, 07/21/11

"We can quibble over economists' numbers, but it doesn't take an economist to know that continuing to add to the national debt is bankrupting us -- and that debt has doubled on [Barack Obama's] watch, aided and abetted by Congress." -- Libertarian Party response to 2016 State of the Union speech, 01/12/16

How do you square these wonderful policy positions with the facts that:

• New Mexico's state government spending grew under your governorship -- in fact it grew faster than the rate of inflation, faster than the rate of population growth, and faster than federal spending has grown during the presidency of Barack Obama; and
• New Mexico's state debt more than doubled under your governorship, just like the US national debt has doubled during the presidency of Barack Obama?

ADDENDUM: In comments below this post, Marc Scribner offers a detailed argument as to why New Mexico's debt under Johnson is materially different -- and more defensible than -- US debt under Obama (or any other president). If I had to summarize that argument, part of it might go something like "New Mexico's debt is like a home mortgage, US national debt is like using a credit card to take a vacation." But there's more to it than that, so hit the comments and read Marc's explanation, please.

Home Stretch Questions for Gary Johnson #4

Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia)

Governor Johnson,

In a recent debate with fellow Libertarian presidential aspirant Austin Petersen in Oregon, you said "So I have a political arm, Our America Initiative, and we've been more outspoken regarding the Patriot Act perhaps than any other organization, writing editorials constantly about the Patriot Act and the infringement that it poses to all of us. As governor of New Mexico, I would have never ever established the Department of Homeland Security. I think it's incredibly redundant." You make that claim starting at about 26 minutes, 10 seconds into this video:



The National Governors Association says otherwise in its reprint of the New Mexico Department of Public Safety's Homeland Security Strategic Plan:

In January 2002, Governor Johnson appointed the Department of Public Safety (DPS) Cabinet Secretary, Thomas L. English, as his Homeland Security Advisor. Mr. English immediately established the Office of Emergency Services and Security (OESS) to carry out homeland security functions and requirements. In July 2002, Mr. English established the DPS, Special Investigations Division, CounterTerrorism Intelligence Section (CTIS).

The strategic plan describes an aggressive intelligence and surveillance plan, to include expanding New Mexico's war on drugs under cover of the war on terror, in direct contradiction to your public statements indicating a desire to pare back the drug war:

The State's Homeland Security Advisor created a counterterrorism intelligence section within the Department of Public Safety, Special Investigations Division. This section will train law enforcement officers statewide in basic terrorism concepts and procedures in developing useful counter-terrorism intelligence. Another focus of this unit will be on identifying sources of drug funds and repositories for drug proceeds. It is believed that drug monies are being utilized to fund terrorist organizations.

The record says that you actually did exactly what you now say you never would have done, not just on the broad issue of "Homeland Security" but with respect to the war on drugs and police militarization (as of the strategic report, using federal grants of more than $5 million for equipment purchases).

What other parts of your actual record as governor of New Mexico are the exact opposite of the claims you make about that record today?

Home Stretch Questions for Gary Johnson, #3

Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia)

Governor Johnson,

Most governors and other high public officials with significant wealth put that wealth in "blind trust" while in office. This involves liquidating known assets and having a trustee invest and manage wealth without the official knowing the details.

Your "blind trust" was a little different: It involved retaining ownership of your construction company, Big J, turning putative management of that company over to your campaign treasurer, allowing the company to bid on state projects run by your administration while claiming that it didn't, attempting to remove two New Mexico Tech regents who had the gall and temerity to choose another contractor over Big J for a state-funded project, and hiring Big J's former president on a no-bid contract under which he was paid $20,000 to write a ten-page report suggesting that you be more "bold" and "dramatic" as governor.

That record, combined with your 2012 presidential campaign's dishonest finance reporting, its outstanding debt of between $1.5 million and $1.9 million, and its tendency to function more as an instrument for the care and feeding of "political consultants" than as an actual campaign, raises two questions:

First, was your problem from 1995-2012 that you were ethically challenged, or that you were not a very competent executive, or both?

Second, is there any reason to believe that you've become more honest and/or more competent since 2012, especially given that your current campaign is once again spending the bulk of its money on the same "political consultants," operating from the same address, only under a new company name?

Home Stretch Questions for Gary Johnson, #2

Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson speaking at a Campaign for Liberty event at CPAC.  (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia)

Governor Johnson, as of 1996 you supported having state employees kill 13-year-old prisoners:

Have you changed your mind about that?

And have you changed your mind on your 1997 support for lowering the bar from unanimity to majority vote for a jury to decide to have state employees kill prisoners?

What's your position on capital punishment this week?

In October 2001 you said that Terry Clark deserved to die and signed the death warrant for the first execution in New Mexico in 41 years. But by January of 2002 you were claiming to be against the death penalty. Kind of. Sort of. In one of those "say it, then take it back" ways you have:

"I believe in the death penalty ... I believe in an eye for an eye. I believe that if you kill somebody, you should pay for that act with your own life. But I have become convinced that the death penalty as public policy is flawed and shouldn't exist."

Errrrr ...

One of your Democratic opponents in the state senate implied that you were trying to trade death penalty repeal for the drug law relaxations you wanted. And it turned out you had actually said you would -- before retracting the offer: "I was asked at a press conference if I would consider trading the death penalty for the passage of the drug reform measures ... I said, 'Yeah, I probably would.' After I said it, I said, 'Time out. Let me renege on what I just said.' I would not trade that off. I'm telling you that because this is something I believe in and I will judge it on its own merits."

An exasperated Jim Belshaw confessed in an op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal to "rhetorical whiplash" over your backs and forths on capital punishment. "Is he sincere?" asked Belshaw. "I don't know. Only he does."

I don't know either. So I thought I'd ask.

Home Stretch Questions for Gary Johnson, #1

Johnson speaking at a Campaign for Liberty event at CPAC. (Photo by Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia)

Governor Johnson, in 1997 you became the first governor of New Mexico to ever be held in contempt by your state's Supreme Court, for attempting to rule by executive decree when the legislature wouldn't pass a welfare reform bill you wanted. Do you regret that overreach? Given the US Supreme Court's greater deference to executive power than your own state's, if elected president, could you be trusted to resist the temptations of the imperial presidency?

Gary Johnson's Campaign Debts Get Bigger and Less Avoidable

The Federal Elections Commission ruled on April 5th that Gary Johnson's 2012 campaign committee owes it a refund of $332,191. The FEC's claim is that some of the "matching funds" welfare it gave to the campaign were used for non-qualifying expenses.

Johnson's 2012 campaign organization, which was already $1.4 million in debt before this ruling, has 30 days to cough up.

In the meantime, his 2016 campaign organization reports that it has, thus far, spent about $36,400 more than it has taken in. I say "reports" because, as we now know, at this time in the 2012 campaign cycle Johnson's campaign actually had six times as much debt as it admitted to. Is the campaign lying this time too?

The Libertarian Party Can't Afford Gary Johnson Again.

[Update: I may be mis-reading the current report. George Phillies reads it as indicating that the Johnson campaign is spending more than it is taking in in actual campaign contributions, but not more than it's taking in altogether -- because it's taking government welfare ("matching funds") again - TLK]

[Additional update: And now, no, it doesn't look like the Johnson campaign is getting any matching funds; rather, its latest campaign finance report is screwed up with respect to which fields contributions were reported in, etc. So whether even the basic numbers reported are correct, or believable ... well, who knows? If they are, the campaign is spending more than it's taking in - TLK]

My Presidential Endorsement: The Text Version

Heavily edited and cleaned up from the audio version (beginning at about 12 minutes in to this week's podcast):

I admit that I was first stuck on None of the Above in my preferences for the 2016 Libertarian presidential nomination, primarily because I expected a "coronation" of Gary Johnson. I didn't necessarily believe that NOTA could win, but I thought that we could get more media coverage of the opposition to Johnson by having NOTA pull 30-35% of the delegate vote than by having some other candidate lose to Johnson.

I've become convinced that NOTA does not and will not enjoy that level of support. I'm still opposed to Gary Johnson, and I'll go into why there are candidates I can't support below, but first:

I endorse Darryl W. Perry for the Libertarian Party's 2016 presidential nomination, and for election to the office of President of the United States.

Disclaimer: Darryl is the primary sponsor of The KN@PP Stir Podcast, but that is not why I am endorsing him. In fact, I specifically told him that a sponsorship didn't buy an endorsement, and of course he didn't expect it to. He's not that kind of guy. He sponsors the podcast because he supports my work. It is reasonable to think, and I freely admit, that having known and worked with Darryl for many years does contribute to my reasons for endorsing him. All that said ...

I endorse Darryl, to begin with, from a simple premise: If the Libertarian Party is going to run a presidential candidate in 2016, it should run a libertarian candidate. And Darryl is a libertarian.

Depending on how big your definition of the libertarian tent is, you might also classify some of the other candidates as libertarians, and I won't contest that classification. But if we're going to talk about which candidate is most libertarian -- if we tick through the Libertarian Party's platform and Statement of Principles -- none of the other candidates is even in Darryl's league when it comes to representing what our party stands for. It's just that simple.

Secondly: Darryl speaks well. He acquits himself well in debate. He can defend libertarian positions. I believe that he will represent our party well on television and especially on radio, as he is a long-time co-host of one of the top talk radio shows in America, Free Talk Live, which ranks 38th on Talkers magazine's 2015 "Heavy 100" list and runs on more than 170 stations worldwide.

He has a good speaking voice. He knows how to use it. He knows how to debate. He knows how to argue. He knows how to present libertarian positions in an understandable, attractive and euphonious manner.

Hands down, Darryl is a good candidate.

Now, let's look at the other candidates.

The elephant in the room -- literally -- is Gary Johnson, former Republican governor of New Mexico. Governor Johnson defrauded the Libertarian Party.

In 2012, one of the issues hovering over his campaign for the LP's nomination was his campaign debt, which he reported to the FEC as $152,000, characterized as manageable, and told the party it could get him a government welfare check (FEC "matching funds") to defray. He lied. We nominated. Months later, after the nomination and after the general election, he amended his FEC report for April of 2012. His actual debt as of that time, it turns out, was $1.078 million, not $152,000. His 2012 campaign remains $1.4 million in debt and his "repayment" proposal is to just screw some of his creditors and "pay" others with uses of his mailing list.

Governor Johnson is horrible on media. He comes off like a young Rodney Dangerfield who isn't funny. He looks embarrassed, he looks tense, he looks sweaty, he has trouble talking ... he's not much of a mediagenic candidate.

And then of course there's his tax plan, the "Fair" Tax, which calls for every man, woman and child in the United States to be put on a federal government welfare check for life (the "prebate" scam). Not very libertarian. So scratch Gary Johnson.

Then we have Austin Petersen, who openly repudiates the Non-Aggression Principle, which is the Libertarian Party's lodestar, embodied in its Statement of Principles. You even have to certify to become a member of the LP that you do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. I just don't see how we can nominate a candidate who openly says he opposes what we stand for and expect anyone to take us seriously for any reason. So scratch Austin Petersen.

Then we have the back of the pack -- the various weirdos who show up wanting our nomination, like Derrick Michael Reid, who posts photos of himself in an 1870s US Army cavalry uniform, advocates having 10-year-olds view public executions so they grow up right, and insists that if we nominate him he'll sweep all 50 states in November. Yeah ... enough about those guys.

That leaves us with two.

One is Dr. Marc Alan Feldman. He's a good guy. I like him. He's been a Libertarian Party activist for several years. He's run for office as a Libertarian. I don't agree with all of his positions, I don't find him an especially dynamic speaker, etc., but if the Libertarian Party nominates him I think I can live with that. I don't find him embarrassing, anyway.

John McAfee, I believe, is our best bet for lots of media, lots of coverage, lots of attention. He seems to be a fairly solid libertarian. He has some deviations -- for example, he wants to create a new government "Office of Digital Transformation" to cover cyber war issues which I don't agree with -- but they're not nearly as bad as Johnson's "Fair" Tax hooey and weird obsession with sharia law and so forth. If McAfee is the nominee, I can support him, promote him, work for him if he needs my help, and vote for him in November.

But still: It all comes down to who is the best candidate.

When I go to Orlando as a delegate to the 2016 Libertarian National Convention and it comes time to decide who will represent the Libertarian Party on the national stage this summer and fall, I will proudly and unapologetically cast my first ballot, and any subsequent ballots until he wins or is eliminated from contention, for Darryl W. Perry. He's that good, both objectively and by comparison to the other choices we have.

If you intend to be a delegate, or if you know some delegates and believe they value your opinion, I encourage you to take a closer look at Darryl and throw your support behind his candidacy and campaign.

Gary Johnson 2012 Inc.: Mere Financial Irresponsibility ... or Criminal Fraud?

Gary Johnson waiting to speak at a Campaign for Liberty event at CPAC. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia)

Disclaimer #1: I am not an accountant, let alone a forensic accountant, nor am I an expert on campaign finance law.

Disclaimer #2: I've discussed what I'm about to tell you with at least two people who take an ongoing interest in campaign finance, especially with respect to third party politics. Those two people are George Phillies, a long-time Libertarian Party activist, author of a book  (Funding Liberty) about the finances of Harry Browne's presidential campaigns and a forthcoming book on the finances of Bob Barr's 2008 presidential campaign and Gary Johnson's 2012 campaign (as well as numerous other books on divers topics); and Darcy Richardson, author of numerous books on third party and independent politics. THIS POST DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THEIR VIEWS, but they do deserve acknowledgement for calling to my attention, and helping explain, some of the anomalies I'm going to show you.

Here's a short version of the narrative I've been preaching for some time now vis a vis Gary Johnson. It's still a somewhat correct narrative, but there have been a couple of important changes to it that make Johnson sound worse, not better. I'm starting off with sort of the "best case scenario."

In 2012, Gary Johnson ran for president as a Republican and racked up six figures in campaign debt before dropping out of the Republican Party, declaring his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination, and dismissing questions about his campaign debt by assuring Libertarians that that could help him get a government welfare check ("matching funds" from the Federal Elections Commission) to erase that debt. He got the nomination, he got the welfare check, then he ran his general election campaign seven figures into debt -- debt which remains unpaid to this very day -- all while campaigning as the "fiscally responsible" presidential candidate.

Like I said, that narrative remains substantially true, except where things are even worse than it makes then sound. Explaining how much worse and why requires a sort of timeline.

* On April 20, 2012, Johnson's campaign committee filed its FEC report for campaign activity up through the end of March 2012. That report declared that the campaign had outstanding debt of $152,373.85.

* Two weeks later, in early May Johnson received the Libertarian Party's 2012 presidential nomination.

* Later that month, in the campaign's FEC report for the period up through the end of April, it reported a similar debt level: $150,181.35.

* Between receiving the LP's nomination and the end of 2012, the Johnson campaign received approximately $550,000 in "matching funds," courtesy of US taxpayers.

A break from the timeline for one important point of information: When a campaign receives federal taxpayer money in the form of "matching funds," it is required to use that money to pay off campaign debt BEFORE using it for other things.*

No problem. The campaign's debt as of April/May 2012 was only about $150,000, so that left a lot of Uncle Sugar's money to do other things with, right?

Well, no, because now we come to the next point in the timeline:

* In early 2013, the campaign filed AMENDED versions of the April 2012 report in which it disclosed that its debt as of that time had been not about $150,000 after all, but had actually exceeded $1 million.

Oops.

The idea behind an "amended report" is that mistakes were made on the previous version that need to be corrected, or that new information has become available which can be used to make the reporting more accurate.

If you believe that the $850,000-$900,000 discrepancy between the Johnson campaign's initial reports and the amended versions was an innocent accounting mistake, I'd like to hear from you in comments because I'm just not seeing how that idea passes the smell test.

The far more likely explanation is that the Johnson campaign defrauded the Libertarian Party's convention delegates by lying to them about its debt levels in order to get the presidential nomination -- and that the Johnson campaign also defrauded American taxpayers in order to get a large spendable windfall.

If the campaign's debt had been accurately reported in first place, those "matching funds" would have disappeared to liquidate it and would have fallen far short of doing so. Even with "matching funds," the campaign would have left the 2012 national convention mired in nearly half a million in admitted debt. And, very possibly, without the party's presidential nomination.

Instead, the campaign only had to spend $150,000 paying off its alleged debt, leaving it with $400,000 in ready cash.

If the FEC is paying attention -- and I suspect it is -- Hillary Clinton may not be the only 2016 presidential candidate with a grand jury in her future.

* Thanks to a pseudonymous commenter for pointing out that that claim is incorrect. While "matching funds" can only be used to pay for qualified pre-nomination expenses, that is not the same thing as requiring them to be used to pay off debt for such expenses before e.g. the campaign reimbursing itself for qualified expenses which it has already paid off.

Nil Sine Troglodytarum?

Every four years, the Libertarian Party chooses a presidential candidate. And every four years a boatload of candidates show up looking for the party's presidential nomination. Some of those candidates are "serious" candidates, and some of them are, well, somewhat less "serious."

The $64 question for the people and organizations whose actions and events feed into the nomination process is: Which candidate is which kind of candidate? Which candidates should we pay attention to, invite to state party conventions and candidate debates, and otherwise offer a little bit of limelight (such as it is in LP circles) to?

Answers to that question range from "invite anyone who has declared his or her candidacy -- it's only fair to give everyone a look" to "invite only the candidates who meet some arbitrary set of standards we set" to "don't actually INVITE any of them, but if any do show up, give them a few minutes of speaking time and let whoever's interested set up candidate-centered events that don't get any kind of official recognition from our organization."

This year, at least one candidate has not been invited to the Colorado Libertarian Party's state convention (scheduled for this coming weekend). The non-invitation was not an oversight. It was an explicit decision by the Colorado LP's executive committee. Not only did they agree not to invite Austin Petersen, they agreed to, insofar as their official capacities are concerned, ignore him.

Here's a story on the non-invitation. Here's another.

I'm skeptical of the claim in the first story that "[t]his is the first time that a state Libertarian Party has refused to invite a Presidential candidate who has been recognized by the national party."

Why am I skeptical? Three reasons:

1. "Recognized by the national party" isn't a very well-defined term. Every four years the Libertarian National Committee argues over which candidates will be listed on the lp.org web site and why. The criteria change over time, and there's almost always a minority of dissenters from those criteria.
   
2. State parties have their own criteria for "recognition." For example, John McAfee was not invited to participate in last weekend's candidate debate at the North Carolina Libertarian Party's convention. Why? Because only the candidates listed on the ballot for tomorrow's presidential primary were invited, and McAfee declared too late to be on that ballot.
   
3. This is the Libertarian Party's 12th presidential election cycle. Given 50 state parties, that would mean 600 state conventions over the years. The total is not actually that high because there haven't always been Libertarian Parties in all 50 states, but "several hundred" is a reasonable, if vague, estimate. While I haven't dug through archives to prove it, I'm reasonably certain that some state LPs did not invite Daniel Imperato to their state conventions in 2008, or Jeffrey Diket in 2004, or Charles Collins in 1996. And so on and so forth. I picked those three because I remember their names and recall that they did attend the national conventions in the years they ran; Collins made the debate stage, Diket received speaking time (and yelled at the delegates, live on C-SPAN, that they were baby-killers and didn't deserve to win), and I am pretty sure Imperato at least got the minimal nominating speech time in Denver. All of those would seem to me to constitute some reasonable minimum of "recognition by the national party."

The situation with Petersen is somewhat different.

To the extent that there's any real polling in this LP cycle -- e.g. the post-debate straw poll at the Alabama/Mississippi convention -- Petersen is currently in third place behind Gary Johnson and John McAfee, from a fairly large field (12 candidates now? Something like that).

Petersen has a background with the Libertarian Party (he worked at LPHQ circa 2008).

Petersen's campaign is registered with the Federal Elections Commission and, as of end-of-year 2015 reporting, claimed to have raised and spent more money than the other campaigns.

And Petersen's explicit published platform is, in my opinion, the second "most libertarian" after Darryl W. Perry's.

So, why doesn't Colorado want him?

Well, apparently the other Colorado LP board members agree with Caryn Ann Harlos that Petersen is not a legitimate candidate for the nomination because he openly repudiates the Non-Aggression Principle as codified in the LP's statement of principles.

Harlos believes that nominating Petersen would violate the statement of principles and would therefore, as an action of the national convention, be valid for appeal to the party's Judicial Committee. And she further believes that the LPCO treating Petersen as a legitimate candidate would be a violation of both the national bylaws and the state party's bylaws.

I agree with Harlos on the import and meaning of the Non-Aggression Principle and the statement of principles. I disagree with her legalistic interpretation of the national bylaws and believe that the delegates have the rightful power to allow Petersen's name to be placed into nomination, to listen to what he has to say, and to nominate or not nominate him.

But where the invitation is concerned, hey -- who the Colorado LP invites to its convention is the Colorado LP's business and no one else's.

And I think there's a good case that Petersen falls into the same category as Imperato, Diket, Collins et. al, even though he's so far proven more persuasive and successful than any of them.

The category in question is: Troll. Per Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

Does the definition fit the candidates I'm describing? Not perfectly. But better than that glove fit OJ Simpson's hand by a damn sight.

Until Austin Petersen decided to run for president as a Libertarian, he was an adamant "I Stand With Rand" Republican.

His campaign so far has been  a smirky, smarmy, patronizing, one-liner-laden troll stroll.

For example, last month, over the course of less than a week, he went from 1) claiming that unless contributions came in NOW NOW NOW, he might not be able to make it to several state conventions, to 2) claiming that he had offered to charter a private jet to take himself and two other candidates (McAfee and Johnson) to Washington for a debate (Johnson declined in favor of existing commmitments). Does anyone really believe he went from too broke for Greyhound to so flush he could charter a G-4 in a week?

So far as I can tell, Petersen's entire angle is using the LP's presidential nomination contest to build his name recognition and personal brand. He's not the first person to do that (we've had actual nominees do it), but his motivations and public statements make his motivations clear enough that it's at least understandable that one or more state LPs might decide "we're here for the real candidates, not the publicity-seeking also-rans."

Still, I do have to say that if I sat on a state LP's executive committee and the question came up, I'd vote to invite him to participate. To the extent that this campaign has "tiers" of "seriousness," while he may not be a former governor or an eccentric multi-millionaire, he's also not just some weirdo running around in an 1870s cavalry uniform and babbling about how children should be made to attend public hangings to l'arn them somethin'.

I doubt that Colorado's executive committee will reconsider its decision at this late date, but I hope they do. And if they don't, I kind of expect (and kind of hope) that Petersen will show up anyway and, if denied time on a stage with other candidates, just spend time talking one-on-one with likely national convention delegates.

And I guess that's my two cents on the subject.

I Call Shenanigans

On Gary Johnson. Today at The Daily Beast, he tries to walk back his statement that as president he would sign a law banning burqas in the United States.

Well, I don't blame him. But down in that piece, we find this:

"I gave Reason the honest kneejerk response and if I’m wrong, I’m wrong"

Kneejerk? Response?

Bullshit.

If it was a kneejerk response to Reason, how did this end up in Politico?

Johnson's views can be hard to pigeonhole. He told POLITICO that he would support a ban on burqas because he believes they are forced under sharia law, not a symbol of religious freedom.

"We need to understand the difference between freedom of religion -- which is absolutely guaranteed and I would fervently defend," Johnson said. "Sharia law is politics, it's not religion. If you say that a woman is voluntarily going to be of lesser value than a man, which is in sharia law, can we allow that?"

And how did this end up in the Albuquerque, New Mexico Journal?

Interestingly, the longtime opponent of interventionist foreign policy and proponent of personal freedoms said he would support banning burqas that cover Islamic women's entire faces. Johnson said Islamic Sharia law doesn't condemn violence against women, and burqas allow women to hide facial injuries.

"We need to separate Sharia law, which is politics, and Islam, which is religion," Johnson said.

"Response?" Who believes that three different publications all chose the same day, the day of his campaign announcement, to ask him "so, Gary, how would you feel about legislation banning burqas?"

And even in some kind of bizarre alternative universe where being asked that three different times by three different journalists on one single day when the issue was on nobody's mind except maybe his was more than perhaps a one in a trillion possibility, how is giving the same basic response to those three journalists "kneejerk?"

It wasn't kneejerk and it wasn't a response. It was on his mind and he wanted to talk about it.

He wanted to dog whistle to Donald Trump's supporters.

And apparently he thought that libertarians (and Libertarians) either wouldn't notice or wouldn't care.

Those last two sentences constitute two entirely independent layers of "what the fuck, Gary?" on top of the idiotic policy position statement.

As if I Needed Any More Reasons ...

... to completely write off any possibility of supporting Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party's 2016 presidential nomination:

Surprisingly for a libertarian, Johnson, who recently resigned as the CEO of Cannabis Sativa, a marijuana marketing form, said that he would sign a bill banning the wearing of burqas in America. Sharia, he insisted, was not an expression of religion but of "politics" and hence many of its practices could be banned or limited without running afoul of the Constitution. -- "Exclusive: Gary Johnson Running For President, Call Trump's Plans 'Just Whacked - Just Nuts!'" by Nick Gillespie, Reason, 01/06/16 [h/t Angela Keaton]

Ye gads! Did Wayne Allyn Root get cold, cut Johnson open, and crawl inside his skin to get warm or something?

I mean, I expected a 2016 Johnson bid to be bad, but I didn't expect him to turn the stupid up to 11 on the first damn day.

Looks Like Johnson is Actually Going to Throw in

Gary Johnson resigned today as CEO of Cannabis Sativa, Inc. "to pursue political opportunities" (hat tip -- Bruce Majors). Which, of course, means he's planning to go after the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination again.

As J. Wilson points out at ALibertarianFuture.com (in a mis-titled post implying that it's "official" -- it won't be until and unless Johnson actually declares), Johnson has some real problems.

He drove his 2012 Republican presidential campaign six figures into debt, then hit up the Libertarian Party to get him a government "matching funds" welfare check. Then he drove his general election campaign seven figures into debt, where it remains as of now. Also, in a year-and-a-half as CEO of Cannabis Sativa, Inc., he managed to tank its stock price -- down by about 93% from $10.75 a share to less than 70 cents a share.

Of course, his most likely "main" opponent, John McAfee, also managed to lose considerable money, going from a net worth of about $100 million (after selling his eponymous anti-virus software company) to $4 million or so in the 2008 financial collapse. On the other hand, McAfee's latest project has already raised five times its goal on IndieGoGo, so he seems to be on the way back up, unlike Johnson.

I'm still with None Of The Above, with Darryl W. Perry as my second choice, but I think McAfee has great potential if he gets back to his earlier, more libertarian roots and away from some of the deviations in his campaign site boilerplate.

Johnson, not so much. He's yesterday's bad news. The LP should have nominated R. Lee Wrights last time and would be stump-stupid to make the same exact mistake twice in a row.