[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

Sun Oct 30 15:09:30 EDT 2016

Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in
my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an
incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a
decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the
sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some
others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings
against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman
Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken
notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly. 

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region
3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to
do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was,
and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is.
Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even
consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the
local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though
the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a
bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV
was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against
taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built
in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to
increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself
suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also
told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have
no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote,
in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have
made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of
the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side
note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without
Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no"
anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle
of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was
what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on
these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way
to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before
the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members. 

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling
the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

	* Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for
not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial
toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip
to the LP?

 	* Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian
Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to
be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are
these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was
discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good
defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and
analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and
he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a
rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

	* In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support
to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those
existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway.

 	* In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these
bills. 

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of
this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage
of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the
best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an
acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so,
internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the
criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be
accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion
would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not
others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed
at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in
defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while
holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for
improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever
they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not
opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that
already infects and cripples this party? 

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it
downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly
focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization,
rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing
more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official
request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have
made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon
asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well. 

So, in sum, I find as follows:

 	* I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote.
 	* I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our
candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes.
 	* I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally
within the party, but are horrible outside the party.
 	* I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good
rather than accomplishing something positive.
 	* I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective
action to try to prevent this from happening in the future.
 	* I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant
LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement.
 	* Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to
the long-term health of this organization.

Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. 

If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you
to go back to the beginning. 

---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee 

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote: 

> We have an electronic mail ballot. 
> Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.
> 
> Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath
> 
> Motion: 
> 
> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and
> 
> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and
> 
> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;
> 
> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.
> 
> -Alicia
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [1]

Links:
------
[1] http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161030/e1ba4ab4/attachment-0002.html>