Bill Bolling and Bob Marshall Come Out Against Convention Fees

Not only is Bolling against the fees, which would arguably help him more than anyone, but he has come out in favor of a statewide primary for the 2012 US Senate nominations.  Bob Marshall, to my initial shock but then not so much once I remembered he's a terrible fundraiser, also sent an extensive email outlining his views on the fees and how they are not just wrong put potentially unconstitutional and even referred to them as a poll tax.  I wouldn't argue against it.  While I normally follow Cuccinelli lock step, on this issue he's dead wrong.  One of the main arguments for a convnetion is that its cheaper, but to charge folks $50 just to vote for a primary candidate doesn't seem to cheaper to me and really is a poll tax. CORRECTION:  The Cuccinelli camp informed me that perhaps Mr. Marshall is not quite accurate in what he is portraying here.  What they want to do is authorize state central to charge up too $50 per delegate.  Its not a mandatory charge, but instead what they want is a rule allowing state central to do this if they so choose.  And state central is elected by the grassroots so they will have to answer for it if they do do it.  I was under the impression that the $50 fee would be fixed on delegates no matter what.  This would put the onus on state central to decide how to pay for a convention if they chose to have one.  Apparently last years put RPV in the red by tens of thousands of dollars. 

However, I still maintain that conventions aren't the right way to nominate candidates and that any sort of fee that whoever decides to charge will hurt the party because its basically making them, or a campaign, spend money to vote for their candidate.  I don't agree with it at all.  But I did want to make sure that I got accurately exactly what they were asking for.

Below is Marshall's extensive letter:

Concerns over proposed mandatory state convention fees were brought to my attention by several grassroots Republicans.  From additional conversations, I believe most of the Republican workers we depend upon to win elections are not aware of these proposed changes, nor their possible effect.

What fees are being proposed for delegates and candidates to statewide conventions?  
Delegates to statewide nominating conventions may have to pay up to $50 each and candidates may be charged up to $25,000 (original recommendation of $50,000) if Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s proposal is approved.  
                                   
Why are these fees being suggested?  
The stated purpose for the fees is to pay for expenses of the convention.  Expenses for the 2008 and 2009 Conventions have been requested but have not been released.  Republicans who decry blank check funding by Democrats should first explain expenses and analyze ways to achieve convention solvency before proposing mandatory fees.  In other words, “promote efficiency before raising taxes.”

What are the practical problems with charging fees to help pay for a convention?
Most campaign donors give checks of less than $50 to candidates.  Will a married couple with two college students pay $200 to attend a convention?  Mandatory fees of up to $50 per delegate and up to $25,000 per candidate will discourage some Republican voters (especially those with children) and candidates from participating in conventions.  Fewer convention attendees will mean fewer energized volunteers for General Elections.  Volunteer activity and its impact on campaigns cannot be measured in dollars and cents. Large fees will make the party seem elitist.  Some dismiss the potential $50 fee and point to citizens who paid $40 to attend the recent two-day Richmond Tea Party Convention but the event does not compare to a nominating convention.  In this economy, fees will most likely decrease, not increase, participation.

Can the Republican Party legally impose mandatory convention fees?
Before mandatory fees can be imposed, the U.S. Justice Department must approve them.  In 1966, a Virginia plaintiff, under the Voting Rights Act, challenged a mandatory fee to vote at the 1994 Republican U.S. Senate nominating convention.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that: “… A fee of $45 to cast a vote for the Party nominee is … a more onerous burden than a mere obligation to include certain public information about oneself next to one’s name on a nominating petition.” (Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 1966)

Will the Justice Department consider the costs of running a convention in deciding whether to approve these fees? 
The Justice Department will not decide this matter based on saving RPV money.  It will examine if fees are allowed under the 24th Amendment which ended poll taxes, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which affects Virginia and other southern states due to its history of discrimination. 

Do mandatory fees throw up cautionary Red Flags under the Voting Rights Act?  
Yes!  The 2006 U.S. House of Representatives Committee Report number 109-478 accompanying the 2006 Voting Rights Act explained:  “In 1982, Congress ... found that ‘despite the gains in increased minority registration and voting and in the number of minority elected officials . . . continued manipulation of registration procedures and the electoral process, which effectively exclude minority participation from all stages of the political process’ continued to occur. ...  Congress reiterated its intent ‘that protection of the franchise extend beyond mere prohibition of official actions designed to keep voters away from the polls . . . include prohibition of State actions which so manipulate the elections process as to render the vote meaningless,’ including ‘atlarge elections, high fees and bonding requirements ...’” [page 10]

In 2006, every Virginia U.S. Senator and Congressman (D’s and R’s) voted to extend the Voting Rights Act for 25 years, despite Virginia’s election of America’s first black Governor.  The 2006 Amendments to the Voting Rights Act provided that: “Any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure with respect to voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizen of the United States on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), to elect their preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the meaning of subsection (a) of this section.”

Will mandatory fees affect minority participation?
Mandatory fees could impact participation of minorities.  It may not be prudent to even raise this question with Barack Obama’s Department of Justice under U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder.  Recall, that this year the US DOJ  declined to prosecute Black Panther Party members for obvious voter intimidation in Philadelphia.  There are no minority Republican members of the General Assembly or Congress.  Also consider that this year’s only Republican minority Congressional candidate, attorney Chuck Smith from Virginia Beach, complained in public that he had little support from the Republican Party.   

The October 24, 2010 Politico report, quotes Lisa Creeden, Chuck Smith’s campaign manager:
“Campaign managers for Chuck Smith in Virginia ... said the support they’ve received from GOP leaders this cycle has been dismal. ... Smith’s campaign manager, Lisa Creeden, said she wishes her boss could count on the party’s help;  ‘I think the Republican Party is going to damage themselves with the African-American community,’ Creeden said. ... ‘We’re looking at pastors who have stepped away from the Democratic Party machine to say we can’t support this man anymore and we want the Republican.”  She added that the GOP pulled the campaign’s access to a voter vault earlier this year.  ‘We have repeatedly asked them for support,’ Creeden said.”

Do mandatory Convention fees violate the 24th Amendment ban on poll taxes?
While there is no direct case on this point, the Supreme Court has struck down wealth distinctions as a condition for voting: “a state violates the … 24th Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.  Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax … The principle that denies the State the right to dilute a citizen’s vote on account of his economic status … bars a system which excludes those unable to pay a fee to vote or who fail to pay … Wealth … is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process.  Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property … are traditionally disfavored …” (Harper v. Virginia Board of Education, 1966).

How do Conventions, Primaries, and Party Canvasses differ on fees?
Presently, conventions request, but do not mandate fees.  There are no fees to vote in a Party Primary which allows military personnel to participate even if out of the county.  Primaries do cost the taxpayers, but few complain about Republican or Democrat giveaways of hundreds of millions in taxes to big corporations for “economic development.”  Party Canvasses are separate elections held in each city and county conducted by Republican Party officials, with possible fees to be determined. Because there is no oversight by state and local Boards of Election, questions could arise about the integrity of the process.  

How do the proposed fees compare with present fees?
At present, there are suggested, but no mandatory fees for delegates to participate in a convention.  Presently, all primary candidates pay  the Commonwealth of Virginia 2% of the annual salary of the office sought (VA Code Sec. 24.2-523). In 2005, AG candidate Bob McDonnell paid $3000 for his primary against Steve Baril.  A fee change would mean an AG candidate in 2013 would pay eight times that amount.  I believe it will be difficult to justify this disparate candidate convention fee vs. the much lower primary fee under Voting Rights Act requirements.  Increased fees may also lead to criticism that some statewide incumbents are seeking to insulate themselves from competition.

I urge Republican Party leaders to reject these mandatory state convention fees.

If you wish to share your concerns regarding the proposed fees, please share them with RPV State Central Committee Members whose e-mails may be found at: http://www.rpv.org/about/page/state-central-committee

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall
R - 13th District of Virginia
www.delegatebob.com

Comments

[Willie Deutsch]

Here is Ken's memo in support. http://vasocialconservative.blogspot.com/2010/11/cuccinelli-supports-making-conventions.html

[J. Tyler Ballance]

Virginia's open primary system is a huge asset to both major parties.

I agree with those like Mr. Cuccinelli who decry the added expense, but what is needed is campaign finance/spending reform, not the abandonement of our open primary system.

A good first step would be to eliminate corporate donations. Corporations are treated as independent entities under the law, but they are not citizens and must not be afforded a vote or be allowed to buy influence.

Second, restrict donations to be from only those whose PRIMARY residence is within the district. This would restore the representative relationship between candidates and the citizens in their district. Of course, state-wide race donors should be restricted to only those citizens whose primary residence is in Virginia.

PAC donations must be banned. These organizations are nothing more than fountains of political corruption and they subvert the will of the People.

All donations must be capped at the current federal individual donation level, including in-kind donations and donations from the candidate. This would ensure that rich candidates would no longer be able bury their opponents in attack ads, and the voices of the citizens would not be drowned-out by external sources of money.

These reforms would go a long way to restoring the relationship between elected representatives and our citizens. It would also eliminate most of the corporate and PAC generated corruption, as well to help stop big money interests from buying our elected officials.

[Loudoun Insider]

This is so ridiculous. ANY charge at all on delegates is BS and is absolutely a poll tax.

[Nice Try]

JTB the racist Dem rears his head!

[Bob Marshall]

I said in my analysis that AG Ken Cuccinelli is requesting that RPV go to the US Justice Department for permission to charge a MANDATORY fee of up to $50.00 per convention attendee and a MANDATORY candidate fee of at least $25,000 (reduced from en earlier KC proposal of $50,000.
So, convention delegates MAY have to pay $50 and candidates MAY have to pay $25,000 (which can be amended to the original $50,000 if Justice approves and if the RPV decides to impose the fees.
How it that inaccurate?
Anyway, paying to vote sure looks like a Poll Tax to me.

[Chris]

It sure does. Do you still favor an open convention over an open primary? If Bob Marshall was a one-man RPV, what would be your peferred way of nominating our 2012 Senate candidate?

[local gop]

I have a solution....ban conventions. Useless and fiscally irresponsible.

[Chris]

Kyle, first we agree on Barbour . . . and now this?! WTF is happening?!

[Loudoun Insider]

Forget it, local GOP, the Coochies would never allow it.

[Ghost of Franklin]

As pointed out above you will never ban conventions because there are certain people in this Party who see conventions as their "last stand" on holding on to power. If you take away conventions, you don't need a Rules Committee or a "Credentials Committee" and we all know that folks like Jim Parmelee live for that.

However, I am not one to go as far as to say banning conventions is a practical step. There are times, (rarely) that conventions are helpful/useful but more often than not I am a Primary fan.

As for this being a poll tax: It is not. There has been discussion that a campaign could always offer to cover a delegate's fee if they so chose. I am sure a campaign would readily do that to ensure they had their voters at the convention.

As for Mr. Ballance's comments there is too much there for me to refute so let's just leave it at: You are out of your mind. And, I truly hope you are not a member of any association that has a PAC...

[Ghost of Franklin]

As a follow up as to why I typically am supportive of primaries is because it allows everyone to participate. Conventions can exclude:

Active Duty Servicemen and Servicewomen

*Older Republicans whose are not physically able to come to a convention

*Thousands of small business owners, especially sole proprietors

*Republicans for whom Saturdays are the Sabbath

*Thousands of familes with young children (some can participate in a convention, but most just cannot)

*Hundreds, if not thousands, of law enforcement officers whose rotation falls on a Saturday

Some will argue that that is there choice and these people can choose to come or not but I find that an incredibly disingenous and ignorant statement to make.

[Loudoun Insider]

Great points, GoF, especially the servicemen and women.

[local gop]

Im telling you chris...the RINO hunters are going to start gunnin' for you...watch out!

[Lauren Yoder]

From my perspective I don't even understand why there is even a discussion over conventions vs primaries. In a convention I have to drive a total of 7 hours, stay at a hotel and sit on a chair all day just to cast my ballet. In a primary I can drive two miles up the road and in five minutes be back at work ( I own my own small business).
The cost of my wife and I attending a convention easily reaches three or four hundred bucks. While this isn't a huge deal to me I would guess it would be a fairly significant cost to many families.
It is beyond my why we would exclude good hard core Republicans from having a say in which candidates are nominated.

[Bruce]

The 8th district paid for their convention (in years past) with large fees for CANDIDATES. The 11th gets sponsors.

If it is cheaper for the candidates to have a convention than to build a statewide organization and media campaign, then get them to pour some of those savings into the convention.

On conventions in general, Ghost of Franklin is spot on. Good job.

[J. Tyler Ballance]

Odd, how the impotent cowards hide behind fake names when they slander, and how they never offer any ideas of their own, or contribute to the discussion.

It is good that most Virginians, regardless of political affiliation, still maintain constructive dialog on the challenges that we all face.

Ask your delegate or state senator about the finance reforms that were previoulsy enumerated. Most will tell you that fund-raising is their most dreaded task and that they welcome reform that will reduce the need to be in perpetual fund-raising mode.

[Ghost of Franklin]

Really? That's what you come at people with? Your suggestions are quite simply a violation of the 1st amendment, and liberty, which I assure you use as your banner. Who are you to tell someone that they cannot give to certain candidates? You support the idea of banning donations to candidates outside of their district. NO candidate would ever support such a ridiculous idea.

As for your other suggestions there is a Supreme Court case on this issue and it is very clear that prohibiting such donations would be a violation of Free Speech. For more information, I would encourage you to research "Citizens United V Federal Election Commission".

Organizations have a right to petition their government officials just as much as an individual. From organizations like the NRA to the Gun Owners of America (GOA), they have a fundamental right to affect political change by supporting and not supporting candidates that support their particular issues. One way to support is by making a PAC donation.

[Jennifer Allomar]

Chris is no RINO. But local gop, now there's a gal with green dot embroidered on her blouse.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

J. Tyler, as Ghost of Franklin has noted, most of your reforms are patentely unconstitutional.

The issue isn't money or associations who join together to raise money and donate it to candidates. The issue is the continued willingness of people to demagogue candidates, lobbyists and other political players in order to score a few cheap points despite a lack of evidence of any kind of widespread corruption.

I agree here with Bob Marshall (amazing isn't it?) that the mandatory convention fees on delegates smells like a poll tax. Which is interesting, seeing as how the Supreme Court case that invalidated poll taxes for state elections arose out of a Virginia law. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess. I just didn't expect to see something like that suggested by the AG.

[J. Tyler Ballance]

Those who support the reforms that I stated previously generally approach the issue from the basis that our Constitution was written to protect the God given rights of the individual citizen.

The reforms are not "unconstitutional" but are a sure path to death for the big money lobbying firms and their various stables of rented strangers who travel like gypsies across America to push the agendas of big labor, or big corporate interests, etc. at the expense of the local citizenry.

The reforms would RESTORE speech, not create an additional barrier, by reestablishing the representative relationship between elected officials and the citizens in their respective districts.

Rulings by the Supreme Court have been overturned in the past and the recognition of corporate political spech by the court was an error that must be corrected, or the liberty of every citizen will be imperiled.

[Ghost of Franklin]

How is proposing who I can/cannot give to not restricting liberty and freedom?

[Becky Stoeckel]

Correction. The 11th District does not pay for conventions with sponsors (though we do sell program ads for additional revenues). We have mandatory delegate registrations fees to participate in the intra-party elections (i.e. District Chairman & State Central Members). The fees are voluntary for those who desire to only vote in the public office elections. It is usually $15-$20 and most folks pay so our conventions (which run as much as $8,000 to put on) pay for themselves. We also have candidate filing fees for party offices and other positions. The fees change from convention to convention, but are never outrageous.
Becky Stoeckel
11th District Chairman

[local gop]

Ghost...companies arent people...that's how.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

JTB, eliminating corporate/union donations is a violation of the First Amendment. See Citizens United. Corporations are citizens under the law, even if they are not natural persons, and they do have constitutional rights.

Restricting donations to only those whose primary residence is a violation of the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV. You can't treat people who live in other states differently. Virginia can't bar Maryland drivers from using Virginia roads. Virginia can't bar out-of-state contributions from non-residents either.

Banning PAC donations is yet another First Amendment violation.

Capping donations at the current level without indexing for inflation and banning all in-kinds would likely - at some future point - be a violation of Buckley and the cases that follow. If the donations are too low, it will become a violation of the first amendment.

And you absolutely can't bar personal money. That's a blatant First Amendment violation.

Barring donations is not the answer. Make the donations transparent and a political issue and you'll see them reigned in. Both sides have ample resources to draw from - it's not like only Republicans are rich.

[J. Tyler Ballance]

The court erred.

Restoring the relationship between the representatives and the citizens in their respective states, and districts is paramount to restoring our Republic.

You absolutely can get bad court rulings overturned, and you absolutely can pass laws that restrict donations to be limited and from only those citizens whose primary residence is within a particular jurisdiction.

We need this reform and we must have it, lest the elctions will continue to be bought by the big monied interests and the voices of the citizens will remain ignored.

I know that professional lobbyists will take a big hit, but so will PACs and corporate slush funds.

With the reforms, every citizen will be heard and elected officials will have to focus only on their particular district's citizenry, in order to get re-elected.

If everyone is following the laws as these reforms mandate, then your access to your elected officials can only be enhanced, and democracy, strengthed.