Cuccinelli Supports Making Conventions Financially Viable

The State Central meeting at the Advance this weekend will be about one thing. Conventions. Cuccinelli is proposing party plan amendments to make conventions more financially viable. These have been debated and discussed by party activists since they were first unveiled in the summer. As a supporter of conventions, I support Cuccinelli's efforts. Bill Bolling and Bob Marshall along with others are opposing them.


The other issue is that it seems Mike Thomas and others have decided to force a vote for a primary at the meeting. Bob Marhsall who seems inexplicably on a warpath against conventions is also supporting the vote for a primary, even though that will insure that he loses if he runs for U.S. Senate. Apparently he has a proxy and will be voting for a primary at the meeting on Saturday.


I will post more about the primary vote later. For now, here is Ken Cuccinelli's statement on the party plan amendments he is proposing.

MEMO – PARTY PLAN AMENDMENTS TO BE VOTED ON AT 2010 RPV ADVANCE
From: KEN
CUCCINELLI
TO: MEMBERS OF RPV STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE

This memo is intended to share my perspective on the content and purpose of the two party plan amendments being proposed that will increase the financial viability of conventions as a method of nomination for statewide offices. These amendments to the party plan are being proposed in light of the 2009 convention, which left RPV with lingering financial obligations.

1. The first proposal being put forward is to allow the party to charge up to a $25,000 filing fee for candidates for all statewide offices.
2. The second is to allow the party the option of charging pre-file fees to delegates to attend conventions. The number being put forward is no more than $50 per delegate.

My reason for supporting these concepts may seem counter-intuitive. When you think of an entire nomination process - including the campaign itself, not merely the nomination election day - a very large convention filing fee, e.g., $25K for a candidate for statewide office will cost much more than a primary filing fee (approximately $4,000), but running a convention campaign can be done for a fraction of the cost of running a primary campaign.If you compare the cost of the 2009 Cuccinelli/Brownlee/Foster convention to the candidates – about $1 million total, to the cost of the 2005 McDonnell/Baril primary to the candidates – about $5 million total, it’s clear that even with significant filing fees, conventions provide the lowest cost access to a realistic, competitive nomination.

By increasing the likelihood that conventions will end up in the black financially, they will be even more viable as a nomination option. Following this page are some questions I’ve encountered about the need for these proposals.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are these fees helpful?

In an ideal world, we would not have to charge fees at all in order to run for public office. Personally, I am in favor of keeping the bar to entry for candidates to enter nomination contests as low as possible. However, because the 2009 GOP Convention resulted in a financial loss for RPV, it would be helpful to make changes so that the State Central Committee can vote for conventions without serious concern that it will send the Party into the red.

Won’t these fees make it more expensive for longshot or low dollar candidates?

No, exactly the opposite. While these fees represent a significant increase from the 2008 and 2009 conventions, they are still significantly lower than the cost of running a statewide primary. For example, in 2005 McDonnell/Baril primary cost both candidates a combined total of around 5 million dollars, whereas in 2009, the convention contest for the same office cost less than 1 million dollars.Conventions are, by far, the cheapest method of nomination for statewide office. By far.If conventions are not more reliably financially viable – the alternative (primaries) will shut out many candidates who otherwise would have had a realistic shot in a convention.

Won’t delegate filing fees keep people from attending the convention?

While charging a fee for delegates to attend a convention is undesirable in some circumstances, it doesn’t mean it will substantially lower the turnout. For example, the 1978, 1993 and 1994 GOP conventions were the largest conventions in Virginia’s history, yet in all three the Party charged a pre-filing fee for delegates.

Will the Department of Justice approve these changes to the Party Plan?

Maybe. This is something that we will only know when an approved party plan amendment is submitted to the DoJ. Based on a case that arose in Virginia, the courts have said that delegate fees would have to be pre-cleared by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act. This is one of those that we just won’t know until we try.

Is there any alternative to charging delegate and candidate fees?

At the moment I believe these are the two simplest alternatives. Voluntary contributions to the party to help offset the cost of conventions are the other most obvious alternative; however, it may be dicey to rely upon that approach to generate the necessary revenue to pay for the event.It is important to remember
that these proposals are to allow RPV to charge the fees if you all feel they are necessary to pay for the conventions. If we come up with an alternate revenue source in the future – the fees may not end up being necessary, and thus don’t need to be charged. This is simply a vote to allow RPV SCC the discretion to charge the fees if they feel they are necessary.ant to remember that these proposals are to allow RPV to charge the fees if you all feel they are necessary to pay for the conventions. If we come up with an alternate revenue source in the future – the fees may not end up being necessary, and thus don’t need to be charged. This is simply a vote to allow RPV SCC the discretion to charge the fees if they feel they are necessary.