Mark Obenshain Calls on Political Parties to Stop Burdening Localities

Every time Virginia Republicans or Democrats choose a primary to nominate their political candidates they strap localities with the cost of the process. At a time when localities are hard pressed for money, political parties that claim to be fiscally responsible should not be forcing localities to shell out large amounts of money for them to choose a candidate. Primaries are not the only way for political parties to select a nominee in Virginia. Virginia political need to stop forcing local government to subsidize their operations. Thankfully Mark Obenshain is bringing up this issue this year in the General Assembly. In a recent e-mail Obenshain introduced his idea.

Ending Subsidies to Political Parties

Virginia is in a somewhat unique situation: we don’t allow voter registration by political party, but we still pay for party primaries. And the truth is, we pay through the nose, sometimes as much as $20 per voter.

There are perfectly good alternatives. Parties often choose to nominate via convention or party canvass, or through a “firehouse primary,” in which a limited number of polling places are opened in each locality, usually for fewer hours than in a government-run election. All of these methods are common, all are relatively affordable – and all are paid for by the political parties themselves.

If a political party wants a conventional primary, fine – but they can pay for it. Our localities are burdened enough as it is. If a party cannot or will not put up that much money, they can always go with a cheaper option. Our localities can ill afford it – and under my proposal, they wouldn’t have to.

It is highly doubtful this legislation will pass. Both parties have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is. However, Maybe legislators will do the right thing, help localities, and do the right thing. No matter what this is an important issue that needs to be raised.

RPV State Central Roll Call Vote

At the RPV Advance, state central voted for a primary. The following is the list of how everyone voted. It was a public roll call vote. Regardless of how you wanted the vote to turn out, it is an important vote with potentially important consequences.

__________________________________________________________

Republican Party of Virginia State Central Committee Roll Call

Vote to Hold 2012 U.S. Senate Nomination by Primary.

Vote held on November 20, 2010

* A Yes vote is a vote for the primary

Chairman, Pat Mullins Abstain

First Vice Chair, Mike Thomas Yes

Morton Blackwell, National Committeeman No

Kathy Hayden Terry, National Committeewoman No

Paulina Campbell, Secretary Did Not Vote

Brian Plum, Treasurer Yes

Linwood Cobb, Budget Chairman Yes

Lee Goodman, General Counsel

William Fralin, Finance Chairman Yes

Juanita Balenger, Eastern Vice Chairwoman No

Kevin Gentry, Eastern Vice Chairman No

Judi Lynch, Western Vice Chairwoman Yes

Wendell Walker, Western Vice Chairman No

1st District

Tom Foley, Chairman Yes

James Bowden sent a proxy, which was disallowed, opposed the primary

John Van Hoy No

Michael Lowe No

Carol Dawson No

Allen Webb No

2nd District

Gary Byler, Chairman No

David O'Kelley Yes

Curtis Colgate No

Roger Miles No

3rd District

Mike Wade, Chairman Yes

Bryan Meals Yes

Chris Woodfin Yes

Cortland Putbrese Yes

4th District

Jack Wilson, Chairman Yes

Col. William Flanagan Yes

Irene Hurst Yes

Wayne Ozmore Yes

Bob Wheeler Yes

5th District

Bill Stanley, Chairman No

Christopher Shores No

Renee Trent Maxey No

Gene Smith Yes

Rachel Schoenwald Yes

6th District

Trixie Averill, Chairman Yes

Mickey Mixon No

Matthew Braud Yes

Jim Crosby No

Mark Peake Yes

Lynn Mitchell Yes

7th District

Linwood Cobb, Chairman Yes

Kristi Way Yes

Marie Quinn Yes

John Tucker Yes

Doug Rogers Yes

David Fuller Yes

8th District

Mike Ginsberg, Chairman Yes

Vellie Dietrich-Hall Absent

Michael Giere No

Mark Kelley No

9th District

Michelle Jenkins, Chairman Yes

John Kilgore Yes

Jerry Lester Yes

Jack Morgan Yes

10th District

Howie Lind, Chairman No

Jo-Ann Chase No

Elizabeth Kay Gunter No

Gary Lofton Yes

Mary Gail Swenson Yes

11th District

Becky Stoeckel, Chairman Yes

Keith Damon No

David Ray No

Patsy Drain No

Caucus Representatives

Senator Emmet Hanger Yes

Delegate Morgan Griffith Yes

Senator Frank Ruff Yes

Delegate John Cosgrove Yes

Virginia Federation of Republican Women

Fay Williamson VFRW President Yes

Vicki Alford Yes

Anna Lee Yes

Young Republican Federation of Virginia

Micheal Hardy, President Yes

Andrew Vehorn Yes

Neil Miller Yes

College Republican Federation of Virginia

Lena Morill, President Yes

Jadan Horyn Yes

Lexy Rusnak Yes

How Desperate is George Allen?

In less than two years Virginia will have a competitive election for U.S. Senate. It appears George Allen is all in as he fights to reclaim his old seat.

Regardless of your opinion on state central's decision to nominate our 2012 U.S. Senate candidate through a primary, the timing of the vote seemed to be politically motivated. While people were originally being told state central would vote on that issue in March, suddenly days before the November meeting Mike Thomas, a close George Allen ally, moved the vote to that meeting. While Mike Thomas denied the timing of the vote was politically motivated, a long time Allen ally ramming through a vote that would help George Allen seems to be a very political move.

As if setting the method of nomination in his favor weren't enough, it now appears George Allen is trying to clear the field of primary opponents. Corey Stewart is planning to run for U.S. Senate. He recently made some critical comments about a George Allen candidacy. (One of few high ranking elected officials to do that.) Days after making those comments, the Washington Posts that Corey Stewart may face a primary challenge in 2011. A few more days pass and we learn that George Allen may be behind this primary challenge.

Appearances suggest George Allen is setting the method for the nomination contest, and clearing the field of opponents. This smacks of some one desperate for power. George Allen has a record and connections. He should be using them to build support, and lay out a bold message for why we should support him, not manipulating the system so that he is the only option we have.

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.

Convention or Primary in the 5th Congressional District?

This Saturday the Republican 5th District Congressional Committee will decide whether to use a primary or convention to nominate their candidate for congress. (Due to recent party plan amendments a canvass could be used, but there seems to be little desire by members of the committee for it.) In Virginia this question is even more important because we have no party registration, and all our primaries are open.

Earlier an article was posted on this blog by one of the conventions biggest advocates in the state party David C. Ray (State Central Member from the 10th District). It makes the best most thorough case for conventions, and should read by all members of the 5th District Committee before Saturdays vote.

There are two reasons why I think a convention is particularly important in this case.

1. It allows the party to choose its own nominee.

In the 5th District the Democrats already have their nominee, and Tom Periello is highly unlikely to draw a primary opponent. There is a long history of partisans on both sides voting in the other sides primary, and with the Democrats not having to hold a primary the chance of Democrats helping decide the Republicans nominee is very high. If the person who runs against Tom Periello will really be the Republican nominee he must be chosen by Republicans.

2. It will make sure the nominee to receive over 50% of the vote.

In the 5th District there are about 7 republicans running for the Republican nomination. While some people do receive more than 50% in a three way race (Steve Hunt in the 37th Senate District) it is very difficult for a candidate to top 50% when more than five candidates are involved. The nominee could easily win in a primary with only 30% of the vote. Will the party really be able to unite behind someone if one third or less of the party nominates him? With a convention 50% +1 of the convention is required for a candidate to win. This helps make sure that the eventual nominee is someone a majority of the activists are at lease somewhat happy with.

This Saturday I hope the 5th District Committee chooses to nominate its candidate through a convention. I have had no time to look at all the candidates to see who a convention would help or hurt, I generally believe that a convention is the best way for Republicans to nominate their candidates.