"NEW LIBERTARIANS" JUST THE SAME OLD DESTRUCTIVE CONTROVERSIES? With Relevant Documentation and Opinion June 8, 2002 version

Massachusetts Miracle or Massachusetts Mirage??
        As we all know, full page, as well as smaller advertisements, for Michael Cloud, his housemate Carla Howell and their various Massachusetts campaigns fill LPNEWS every month.  And we all get those four to eight fundraising letters a year from Cloud or Howell talking about how our money can help them achieve their latest big plans--or save them from imminent collapse!
       Now we have Cloud and Howell's close Massachusetts associate, LP of Massachusetts Chair and LNC member Elias Israel, placing full page advertisements in LPNEWS with more big promises to double this and double that if he is elected Chair.  While some argue these advertisements are proof of the Massachusetts miracle of achievement, others think facts show it is only a Massachusetts mirage.  In fact, Cloud-Howell-Israel appear to be the ultimate "apparatchiks," working for personal profit or to forward their own personal agenda.  (See Robert Shea's article on apparatchiks Empire of the Rising Scum.)
       On Israel's Chair campaign web site he promises to create "The New Libertarian Party"--i.e., "making the Libertarian Party into a true major party all across America."  Strangely, he doesn't explain this shades of the Committee for a Libertarian Majority phrase or this goal in his full page advertisement in the January 2002 LPNEWS.  Does he want to create a "neo-libertarian" movement which mirrors the welfare statism and military inteventionism of the neo-conservative movement?
       What kind of "new" Libertarian Party will Israel and friends really create?  Looking at the list of outrages on the controversies page, as well as the evidence presented below, I think we will see more destructive controversies regarding conflicts of interest, profiteering and attacks on those who uphold principles and ethical standards. The problem with Michael Cloud, and by association Carla Howell's, fundraising, and Elias Israel's suport for them, is not necessarily every single action, activity or short-coming, but the context of the continuation of a pattern of deceptive and even bullying behavior that has caused so much controversy over the last ten years.

Cloud Pumped Up Massachusetts Party
     Elias Israel appeared on the Massachusetts libertarian scene in the mid-1990s and quickly wrangled himself the position of State Executive Director.  He was elected Massachusetts Chair in 1999, the same year well-connected professional fundraiser Michael Cloud moved to Massachusetts to be with his future housemate Carla Howell.  Cloud was not involved in the 1998 Massachusetts campaigns where Israel ran for Lt. Governor and Howell ran for State Auditor. Each raised only a little over $8,000 for their races.  However, with Cloud's help Howell raised $821,362 dollars in her Senate race just two years later.  Significantly, however, she received only about three times as many votes as in her 1998 race despite spending 100 times as much money!
     On his Israel for Chair web site Israel claims: "In the last four years, Mr. Israel has raised over $180,000 for Libertarian organizations and candidates." One wonders how much of that was raised only because of Cloud's help.
     Of course, Israel's own approach to fundraising raises questions.  George Phillies shares an e-mail Israel sent him in 1998 responding to Phillies' question about what happened to $11,000 raised at a Massachusetts convention that was supposed to be shared with all candidates for state and federal office.  Mr. Israel admits that he effectively mislead members into contributing money to the federal political action committee and then called some back and asked them to re-write checks to their "favorite" state candidates--assumedly himself and/or Carla Howell.  Phillies, a federal candidate, received nothing. See e-mail.
     During these years the party also attained major party status, increased the number of registered libertarians from 3,000 to 16,000, and the number of elected officials from zero to 18.  The number of paid state and national members grew from about 600 to over 800.  (Note: Many of the facts in this section come from John Gregg's February 2002 Metro West Daily News article and Peter Hartzel's March 2001 National Review article, as well as from longtime Massachusetts activist George Phillies who includes more revelations in his forthcoming book Funding Liberty.)

Questions about Cloud/Howell Financial Dealings in Massachusetts Campaigns
        Since 1998 Michael Cloud, 50, has helped Carla Howell, 46, organize a year 2000 U.S. Senate campaign, the Committee for Small Government, the Small Government Act state tax repeal initiative, her recently announced 2020 Governors campaign, as well as his own year 2002 U.S. Senate campaign. These campaigns together have raised more than a million dollars so far.  Elias Israel told a National Review reporter Howell and Cloud hoped to raise over $7 million for their 2002 campaigns.

        Howell's Year 2000 U.S. Senate race:   Michael Cloud was chief executive officer of Howell's 2000 Senate campaign and helped her raise $821,362 from over 5000 contributors, most of it small donations from e-mail and direct mail appeals to Massachusetts and national Libertarian Party lists. Cloud was paid more than $82,000 in fund-raising commissions. Cloud claimed he was owed another $47,000 which he has forgone. (That would be about the 15% fundraising fee some claim he earns.)
        In campaign fundraisers Cloud/Howell repeatedly claimed that Howell would be Senator Ted Kennedy's only opposition and he would be forced to debate her.  Of course, one way they tried to guarantee that was by challenging the Republican candidate's petition signatures, something most libertarians frown upon except in the most egregious cases of fraud.  They also ignored the possibility that other candidates were certain to be on the ballot.  In fact, on election day there were six candidates for Senator on the ballot.  Most damningly, former Massachusetts activist David Euchner (in a February 2002 e-mail on MA-LIBERTY) also claims Cloud continued to send out letters to non-Massachusetts libertarians claiming only she and Kennedy would be on the ballot even after the Republican was certified.
        Despite scant media attention, Carla Howell got over 300,000 votes, more than 12 percent of the vote, and ran a close third to Republican candidate Jack E. Robinson.  Critics note that the Republican Party in Massachusetts, which holds less than 20 percent of the state legislature, promotes policies little different than big government Massachusetts Democrats.
       In an e-mail former Massachusetts activist and Congressional candidate David Euchner mentions "rumors of financial hanky-panky surrounding her campaign for Senate in 2000" and his disgust with those who make a practice of "feigning a principled stance against the law only after getting caught."  He may have been referring to a case of  questionable payments totaling $20,000 through "third party payment intermediaries" which former LNC Treasurer Mark Tuniewicz described in a June 2001 e-mail.  Perhaps some members had a problem with the fact that, as overview of Libertarian Association of Massachusetts FEC reports show at least one third of "LAMA" funds went to advertising for the Howell campaign.
       Others criticize the general modus operandi. Former LNC member Thomas L. Knapp in a July, 2001 e-mail describes it as:
        Find a plausible candidate. Get yourself and your shills hired as "staff." Turn on the hype machine and start rolling out bizarre, unsupportable claims about the campaign's potential (or, in the Howell case, flatly false claims about the current situation); wait for gullible Libertarians to write checks. Pass those checks through to your pockets by any means necessary. If the money train loses momentum, go to an LNC that is composed equally of friends and of people who will do just about anything to keep the LP from being embarrassed by your graft, and schmooze them to write you a check from Party funds.
        In the case of the Howell campaign, Cloud got lucky. Despite his ministrations, she performed pretty damn well. Not that that matters: If she had polled 1/2 of 1%, we would have been hearing about what a victory it was, and we'd still be looking at her as a potential 2004 nominee (see "Browne, Harry campaign"). Since she did extremely well, he has her back in harness to pull the money train around the track an *additional* time in 2002.

      The Small Government Act: Michael Cloud and Carla Howell how have turned her message into a slogan--"small government is beautiful"-- and even registered it as a service mark.  This prevents other libertarians from using the slogan without her permission.  Of course, considering that libertarians consider government to be force, many would not be willing to use it!
      They began the Committee For Small Government which raised more than $250,000 and collected and filed 75,629 signatures to put an initiative on the November 2002 ballot to abolish the state income tax and cut the state budget by $9 billion.  Or, as Howell puts it, "give back $3,000 to 3 million" Massachusetts residents.  In 2001 Howell collected $12,000 in consulting fees and Cloud $12,000 in fund-raising commissions from the Small Government campaign, for a few months of work.
      Several critics particularly criticized last minute emergency appeals such as: "We need $15,000 in the next 72 hours to survive the consequences of the Terrorist Attack on September 11th."  The letter claimed these attacks, as well as the subsequent anthrax attack, decimated fundraising and left them in debt to petitioners, printers and utility and shipping companies.  Tennessee activist Steve Trinward, in an article "Back Door Politics" claimed this was part of a series of questionable "ALLCAPS" alerts pleading for money to save their campaign -- and to make sure that their own salaries were covered.  (Trinward has a "Jefferson Smith Trilogy" that also discusses Cloud/Howell organizing. George Phillies alleges a posting of a link to Trinward's article on a Massachusetts discussion list so angered Elias Israel he closed it down!  Massachusetts activists immediately started two new lists, MA-LIBERTY@yahoogroups.com and masslp@yahoogroups.com.)

      Current Cloud and Howell Campaigns:  If Cloud and Howell collect from their Governor and Senate races even half of the $7 million state chair Elias Israel predicted, Cloud would make a pretty penny in 15% fundraising commissions.  Already their full page and quarter page Governor, Senate and Small Government fundraising advertisements fill LPNEWS.  LPNEWS also contains another full page advertisement for for Elias Israel's LNC Chair campaign and for the Massachusetts Libertarian State Convention.  After seeing the February 2002 issue of LPNEWS, one D.C. libertarian declared, "I'm starting to hate the Massachusetts party!"
       Cloud and Howell's financially benefiting from the Small Government Act and their Governor and Senate campaigns attracted the interest of a small town reporter John Gregg of metrowestdailynews.com.  Their response to his inquiries are of interest.  Gregg noted the payments are legal under state law, but found it unusual "the Libertarians' two top candidates in Massachusetts are both living under the same roof while also overseeing and benefiting from political fund-raising campaigns that pulled in more than $250,000 last year."
       According to the news story, Howell "bristled at the overall line of inquiry, questioning a reporter about his own salary and possible financial investments."  She told the reporter, "It appears to me that you are writing a 'hit' piece....an article about sleazy gossip...My donors have every right to know how I'm spending their money, and when they ask me, I tell them. It's not your job to report to my donors, it's my job to report to my donors." However, honest libertarians should not be upset about the press looking into their financing since the public too has a right to know if candidates are serious or just out to make money off their campaigns--and their offices, should they be elected!
      In the article, Cloud claimed he makes no secret of the payments. "I have a vendor relationship (with the Libertarian campaigns). Unlike a lot of people who do it, I don't hide under a company name."  However, some contributors claim they have never been notified of this relationship and learned about it only through the grapevine.
     A February 2002 thread on LPUS brought forth the following additional comments on the Cloud/Howell modus operandi:
    "The 'Scandal' SHOULD be that they have taken a salary in every venture they have touched ...And never (to my knowledge at least, and I've been on both their e- and smail-mail lists since early 2000 or so) have they made this clear in their fervent and urgent appeals for donations." (Steve Trinward)
     Not "Michael and I are each taking a salary that amounts to more than a full-time, minimum wage job out of this; and our household income from the campaigns, over the last two years, including his fundraising commissions, has averaged out to at least $53,000 per year, not counting meals and lodging for which we may have been reimbursed where the guy who works at the convenience store is not, and not counting any 'real' jobs we may also have. Send money, or we may be late with the cable bill."  Now, the latter was intended to be sarcastic, although the numbers are conservative and accurate. I don't have a problem with Cloud or Howell making a living while spreading liberty. I _do_ have a problem with hyperbolic, "we're in a bad spot" fundraising appeals that say "the peons and the people we signed contracts with will get the shaft if you don't pony up," when there is obviously enough money coming in to keep the figureheads in pork and beans." (Tom Knapp)
     Having candidates making money on their own campaigns is a very slippery slope which will lead to people running campaigns "just" to get a paycheck. I have never heard of political candidates getting paid to "run" for "any" political party.  I have heard of candidates loaning money to their own campaigns, but I have yet to hear of any candidates (outside of the LP in Massachusetts) getting paid to seek political office.  Campaign workers getting paid?  Yes.  Candidates paying themselves to run would lose my support and respect. (R. Lee Wrights)
      George Phillies reveals that at the end of 2001 the Howell for Senate campaign was thousands of dollars in debt, including to LPNEWS.  Whether it will recover as we move into the more profitable spring months and as (and if) the economy recovers, we shall see.

        Howell for President 2004??: Many believe that Cloud, with the support of the national staffers who many feel really run the party, is grooming Howell to be the Libertarian Party 2004 presidential candidate.  All her efforts receive top LPNEWS billing; she was a frequent unscheduled speaker at the year 2000 convention; party training materials mention her as a model candidate; her photograph is prominently displayed in the full page convention advertisement in the February 2002 Convention advertisement in LPNEWS.  This, even as candidates who get more far more votes or a greater percentage of the vote -- or who even win elections -- are largely ignored.  My December 2000 question to one staffer about whether the staff was promoting Howell was greeted with hostility.
     The feeling that Howell is being forced down the party's throat, while other, potentially better, candidates are largely ignored, and before other candidates have a chance even to consider running, cannot help generate hostility and/or demoralize members.  This is illustrated in a late 2000 LPUS thread called the "Selling of the President(ial Campaign)" where member Bill Hadju comments: "Carla Howell has already been picked as our 2004 candidate, and for at least six months now the membership has been trained to think of her as the one. This process of indoctrination will continue until 2004, at which time the membership will freely choose her as our nominee, just as it was led to do."

      Demoralization of Grass Roots Activists:  What effect have the Howell/Cloud campaigns, undertaken during the time Elias Israel has been Chair, had on the growth and energy of the Massachusetts party?  In February, 2002, former LNC member Tom Knapp wrote: If you want to talk about 'growing,' we can. The LP's membership in Massachusetts grew by 17 net new members in 2000 and 26 net new members in 2001, the two years in which Howell and Cloud have been the moving, "professional" force in that state's libertarian movement. Who was taking home $53K to grow it in 1999, when it grew by 124 net new members? Or in 1998, when it grew by 150 net new members? Or  in 1997, when it grew by 29, or in 1996, when it grew by 195? How many Libertarians can Howell and Cloud be credited with electing to office? How many policy changes can they be credited with causing?
        In December, 2001 former Massachusetts activist and Congressional candidate David Euchner, who had recently left the state, wrote an e-mail on the LPAZ e-group list which included the comments:
        The real problem with the "Small Government Act" (as Carla has dubbed it) has little to do with its support among the VOTERS, and has much more to do with how little support this initiative has among the LIBERTARIAN ACTIVISTS in Massachusetts. There are many reasons why the LPMA rank-and-file does not wholly support this initiative.
        First, we do not field as many candidates or raise as many volunteers as other states are able to do. For example, I was the only Congressional candidate in 2000 out of 10 seats. Also, our vote totals are better than candidates in other states because we run in a one-party state where the GOP activists are en masse defecting to the LPMA or dropping out of politics altogether. We have precious few volunteers for such a large amount of work such as supporting candidates for office. So when Carla Howell announced the Small Government Act and the kind of resources she was expecting from within the state, a lot of people were taken aback and aggravated because this necessarily means that the other candidates are going to suffer from volunteer-drain come the springtime.
        Second, Carla has no understanding of RATIONAL self-interest. She does not realize that when she gets help from others and then does not help others in return (no matter how ridiculously small the amount of help asked of her), that the volunteers will start to catch the drift and stop helping her. For example, in year 2000, she campaigned throughout Massachusetts for U.S. Senate, including many campaign stops in my Congressional district as well as the various districts of the 18 candidates for state legislature. It is not an exaggeration to say that she made more campaign appearances with Harry Browne than she did with the other 19 candidates for Massachusetts office combined. Also, she flat out refused to endorse Craig Mathias for his special election this fall even though he is the LPMA's most decorated local officeholder, a rare libertarian who has actually won an election. She also refused to share with us her list of lawn-sign locations for her 2000 campaign, even with the understanding that we would share our list of locations for 2001 with her and thereby increase her base of supporters for her 2002 race for Governor.
       Fourth, because of the numerous personnel connections between the Howell and Browne campaigns (most notably Michael Cloud), every scandal that affects Harry Browne affects Carla Howell by extension. Many in the LPMA have decided against joining or staying with the party as a result of LPMA's failure to take a stand against corruption when given the chance with the Browne/Willis matter.
        For these and for many other reasons, Carla Howell has failed to energize the LPMA rank-and-file behind her and her Small Government Act. In addition to those who, like me, withheld their support altogether, there are many more who are volunteering but are not nearly energetic about their work.
       Craig Mathias himself finally chimed in in March of 2002, claiming that Howell may have refused to endorse him not because his strategy was too gradualist and "wimpy" but because Carla saw him as a potential competitor for higher office.  See his e-mail below.  (I personally don't have a problem with gradualists, as long as they let us radicals do our thing -- and don't seriously expect us to obey their laws and pay their taxes!  C. M.)
      The Libertarian Party is filled with individualists who question selfless volunteerism and worry about the concept of political "parasitism."  That self-styled party leaders are manipulating the process to increase their profits, while expecting most other party members to sacrifice their time, energy and money, cannot help but breed resentment, disgust and member dropout.

Elias Israel--Just a Cloud/Howell Puppet or A Puppeteer??
        Besides serving two terms as Massachusetts Chair, where he was part and parcel of the Cloud/Howell machinations described above, Elias Israel joined the Libertarian National Committee in the spring of 2000, replacing his close Massachusetts associate Muni Savyon.  At the July 2000 convention Israel was elected as one of the five At-Large Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.  Some claim that Elias Israel is just a puppet of the Cloud/Howell faction, someone who owes all his accomplishments to them and does their bidding.  While there is no doubt Israel has done his best to protect and advance their interests, including in his position on the Libertarian National Committee, he also has his own agenda and his own modus operandi.  These agendas become evident through study of the incidents and tendencies below.

       Helped Drive Elected Official Out of Party for Refusing Him Loyalty:  Craig Mathias was chair of his town council  running for State Representative as a Libertarian in a special election, the only libertarian State Representative candidate that year.  Mathias mentioned to Elias Israel in informal conversation he had received a $100.00 contribution from Israel critic George Phillies. According to Bill Woolsey's e-mail below, Israel is reported to have responded that if Mathias would return the check to Phillies, then Israel would guarantee that Mathias got that $100 and more. Mathias made no immediate reponse but replied by letter that he would not return Phillies contribution--he had no reason to do so.  Mathias' campaign chairman, David Euchner explained to Israel that they wanted to stay out of this battle with Phillies. That is when Israel reportedly told Euchner that they were either with him and Cloud and Howell, or else they were against them.   If they sided with his crew, then Mathias would win.  If  they tried to stay out of the fray, then Mathias would lose.  (Whether he was serious or manipulating Mathias is unclear.)  Mathias subsequently quit the party.  His e-mail statement below on why he quit does not mention Israel, but emphasizes his discontents with Carla Howell.

     Supported Kicking Republican Off Ballot: During the August 24, 2000 LNC teleconference meeting Joe Dehn, reacting to Carla Howell's attempt to have the Republican candidate kicked off the ballot, put forth a resolution that said in part: "That the Libertarian National Committee condemns the invocation of such laws by any person for the purpose of keeping a candidate of any party off the ballot, and ...That the Libertarian National Committee urges all state affiliates of the Libertarian Party to adopt this same policy with respect to their employees, agents, and resources." Steve Givot seconded it.  Only one member spoke out against the motion per se.  The minutes read: "Israel said that he does not support the motion. He said that one role of government is to protect people from fraud, but it does not do so. He said that we need to play by the same rules as other parties play by."  Others felt this needed to be discussed in a face to face meeting and the resolution was withdrawn.

     Tried to Keep Other Libertarians Off the Massachusetts Ballot:   As described on the controversies page, as Massachusetts Chair, Elias Israel announced at the the December 1999 LNC meeting that he opposed putting libertarians who didn't meet certain criteria running against Harry Browne in the Massachusetts primary--a privilege granted to him by the State of Massachusetts.  One criteria, which he exercised against Don Gorman, was that they had to be national party members, which Gorman was not.  Even though Gorman quickly joined the national party, and was assured by Massachusetts activists he would be put on the ballot, he did not end up on the ballot.  (December 1999 LNC Mintues and two recent e-mails shed light on this story.)  The full story of what happened has yet to come out.

    Objected to Open Meetings of the Strategic Planning Committee:  Individuals who witnessed the December 9-10, 2000 LNC Meetings have told me that Elias Israel's repeated objections to open meetings of the strategic planning committee seriously held up deliberations. The record shows that at least three times Israel made comments: "he said that he is as much a fan of openness as anyone in the room, but that it may be more difficult to say certain things if the meetings are open;" "Israel said that our strategic planning should not be done in a manner that our political opponent have access to our thinking;" and "Israel said that this is a team-building exercise and that participants shouldn't have to worry about making a mistake or how others - outside LNC-SPT - would react."
       This decision resulted in a number of Internet complaints from and to LNC members and Mr. Israel.  (See relevant e-mails.)  The first meeting was held as a closed meeting.  Israel, probably realizing that his earlier stand had hurt him politically, moved at the April 2001 LNC meeting that the remaining LNC-SPT meetings be held as open meetings, stating "discussion about this topic is more distracting than is justified by the offsetting benefits."

    Opposed Punishment of Perry Willis for Lying to LNC:   At the April 21, 2001 LNC meeting Elias Israel spoke out in favor of the party joining on to the Harry Browne/Perry Willis FEC lawsuit because it "seeks to achieve a significant objective stated in the LP Platform."  Other members felt it would distract efforts or that it would involve the LP in a project that some were claiming was just another Perry Willis fundraising scam.  The LNC tabled a decision--only to find out at the end of the meeting that there was evidence indicating that Perry Willis had lied to the LNC about working for Harry Browne's presidential nomination bid against LNC policy.  Willis confessed soon after.  The LNC immediately voted for an investigation via teleconference.  While Israel evidently boycotted several LNC teleconferences regarding this matter, he nevertheless tried to squelch attempts to investigate and punish WIllis, Browne etc.  As various e-mails below attest, Israel dismissed the investigation as being motivated by angry activists with axes to grind and based merely on innuendo and hearsay.  In March, 2002, Browne endorsed Israel for Chair.

    Called Anti-Interventionist LNC members "Anti-Jewish":    At the August 2001 LNC meeting in Las Vegas, two LNC members put forth a resolution that given escalating conflict in Middle East nations, the LNC should reiterate the Libertarian Party's position that military aid and troops should be withdrawn from the region.  Israel, the first to speak, stated: “There was no call for a motion like this for the months and years that Palestinians attacked Israelis.  When Israelis turned the tables, a motion like this comes up.  In my mind, that gives, I won’t say anti-Semitic, cause we’re all semites, but an anti-Jewish tinge.   The timing is horribly, horribly bad.  And I’m actually a little offended.” Member Ben Scherrey stated he disagreed with the LP's non-interventionist position and that the United States had a duty to protect Israel which would be destroyed without America's help, a comment Mr. Israel did not attempt to separate from his own.  After these heavy intimidation tactics, the resolution gained only 3 votes out of 18 members.  Considering that Israel has been a socialist and colonialist state, oppressing and dispossessing the Palestinian natives and confiscating their lands, since it's founding in 1948, Elias Israel's comments either display political ignorance or consist of outright lies.  See Carol Moore's article on Middle East Issues and Emotions.

    Pushed Pro-Bombing Resolution Through LNC: At the October 14, 2001 LNC meeting Elias Israel took advantage of the September 11th terrorist attack to promote his self-described "hawk" position that the LNC support the US government taking "forceful action against terrorists."  (He assured members he wouldn't "force" the resolution on them.)  The resolution passed with 17 yes votes, no  "no" votes and only one abstention.  It included the controversial statements: "Such criminals must be rooted out and destroyed before more innocent people die. Their training camps and weapons must be eliminated. Their supply infrastructure must be shattered." It also noted: "Every precaution must be taken to minimize injury or death to innocent civilians and non-combatants -- in Afghanistan and in other nations." This statement obviously supports the US government bombing any part of any nation where those suspected of terrorist connections or intent are living, working or passing through--and without a Constitutional declaration of war, which our platform clearly calls for.
       However, after criticism from various quarters of pro-bombing and "Israel First" LNC members, at the December 2001 LNC Meeting the "hawks" could only must 9 votes to defeat a a non-intervention resolution.  This time there were three "yes" and five abstain votes.  Perhaps because of public criticism of his August 14 "anti-Jewish" and October 14 "hawk" comments, this time Elias Israel did not lead the debate but only echoed fellow hawks' comments.  For full details of the relevant resolutions and notes and quotes from the LNC debates go to the articles section of the Libertarians for Peace web site.

    Stifles Complaints, Dissent and Competition:  Elias Israel shows a total intolerance of open discussion and debate.  He wanted the Strategic Planning meetings to be closed.  He made sure that the Massachussetts discussion list did not allow criticism of Harry Brown and then later shut it down when members criticized Michael Cloud and Carla Howell. (See information below.) He wanted not real inquiry into the Willis affair. Right after the September 11 attacks he wrote an editorial "We Need More Strength," published on the Libertarian Party of Virginia web site, where he opined: "The pointless bickering that has been the bane of our party must stop TODAY. The lack of focus, the lack of willpower, the lack of determination that have plagued us must stop TODAY. We can no longer afford them. They are the last remnants of our party's adolescence and we must put them behind us."
      Given this state of mind, one must wonder how LNC Chair Elias Israel would treat critics if he was Chair of the Libertarian National Committee and in charge of the staff that puts out LPNEWS and dispenses national funds to state parties and candidates?  What Mr. Israel seems to want is blind obedience to his leadership and his command.

Analyzing Elias Israel's Campaign Promises
       Given everything we have seen of the behavior of Israel's closest allies over the last few years, as evidence in my controversies page and on this page, one much question Mr. Israel's campaign promises as carried on his web page and his LPNEWS advertsisement, a copy of which he also mailed out to an LP mailing list.

If I am elected Chair, my priorities will be these:
     1.  By Election Day 2004, I am committed to increasing the number of dues-paying members from 32,000 to at least 65,000, doubling the annual budget of the national party to at least $7 million, doubling the number of members in each and every state affiliate, and doubling the annual budget of each and every state affiliate.

     2.  I will work to ensure that national, state, and local Libertarian affiliates actively support both our flagship campaigns — high-profile, party-building races — and bona fide grassroots campaigns — electable Libertarians in winnable races.

               3.   I will promote a Libertarian Party culture of productivity, teamwork, and action.

           What is his past history of team work? Working well with Michael Cloud and Carla Howell? Trying to have more closed LNC meetings? Excusing unethical actions which many libertarians find reprehensible? Inferring LNC members are anti-Jewish if they don't support U.S. aid to Israel--or war against its many enemies?  Shutting down discussion lists that criticize his cronies?

    4.    I will work towards doubling the number of elected Libertarians by Election Day 2004

          In Massachusetts libertarians the number has grown from none in 1996 to eighteen in 2001, all in nonpartisan offices. While Israel can claim some responsibilitly for that growth, the general weakness of his other claims, and the divisive nature of his leadership as described above, makes one doubt his ability to accomplish this goal.

Does Elias Israel Have A Hidden "Israel First" Agenda?
         Many libertarians are waiting for Elias Israel to apologize to libertarians and Libertarian National Committee members for his "anti-Jewish" accusations and to explain what he means when he calls himself a "hawk" and what his position is on ending U.S. aid to the state of Israel.  He will have to answer those questions before the voting on LNC Chair.
        Does Elias Israel agree with Ben Scherrey who stated during the August LNC meeting where Mr. Israel made his "anti-Jewish" statement: There is no question at all that if we achieved what this resolution purports to propose that the state of Israel would disappear off the face of the earth within the next three months.  And we have a responsibility because we helped form the state of Israel, right or wrong, and I believe that they have a right to exist and that we should actually give military aid to Israel and I have libertarian reasons for that which I’ll be glad to discuss on our time some other time.  One has to assume so, or why would he call those Libertarian National Committee members who wanted the US to immediately end aid to Middle East nations "anti-Jewish"?
       I doubt Mr. Israel main purpose of joining the party was to work to soften its non-interventionist stand.  However, I do know that supporters of the state of Israel, just like those who want to prohibit all abortion, can be fanatical, as well as very wiley in promoting their agenda.  (See Georgianna Geyer's article "Pro-Israeli, Anti-Arab Campaigns Could Isolate America.") They certainly do not want the Libertarian Party to call for cutting off aid to middle eastern nations, if that includes Israel.  Mr. Israel's post-September Chair statement on his LPMA web site as well as his editorial "We Need More Strength," published on the Libertarian Party of Virginia web site, fail to even mention the concept of non-intervention.  Excerpts from the latter suggest Israel is motivated by the "never again" and "it can't happen" here psychology of a people under seige, in fact rather like the Jewish Defense League principle of Barzel --  not of libertarians forth rightly proclaiming their right to liberty.  It is more mentality of an "Israel Firster" than an American libertarian!  Libertarians have a right to ask Mr. Israel if he will continue to promote non-interventionism as Chair and whether he will use his position to sabotage the efforts of libertarians who are encouraging libertarians, like members of Libertarians for Peace, to run campaigns and projects emphasizing non-interventionism and US out of the Middle East.

   When I was young, my parents often told me, "Never let them tell you that it can't happen here."
           I thought I understood what they meant. Now, we all know. On Tuesday,  September 11, madmen plunged us into a nightmare that none of us ever  thought we would see....
           We are, by every appearance, in a state of war....
           On Tuesday, September 11, America had to grow up the hard way. Gone is  the illusion that terror happens to other people. Gone is the illusion that we  can conduct the same old foreign policy with impunity. And gone is the  illusion that it can't happen here.
           We must demand absolute punishment for the guilty, and resolute protection  of the innocent.
           We must fight to elect more Libertarians, so that we can rapidly bring about  the day when we make government small and such things can never happen  again. We must have a government that protects the people instead of  burdening them, one that performs only its constitutional functions, with clarity, efficacy, and economy...
           In our history, nothing has been able to stand against American  determination. We, no less than any other Americans, are the heirs and  recipients of that determination.
           We will protect our way of life. We must.
           Libertarians do not need lighter burdens or an easier task.
           We need more strength.

---

ELIAS ISRAEL FUNDRAISING INCIDENT
From: Elias Israel <eli@promanage-inc.com>
To: George D. Phillies <phillies@WPI.EDU>
Cc: board@la-ma.org
Subject: Re: SUCCESSFUL LIBERTARIAN TEAMS

At 08:03 AM 9/7/98 -0400, you wrote:
>   where *is* the money we raised at the February Convention?
>   There should be about ten grand, as I recall from the announcement at
>the time.

The fundraising was done in the name of LAMA [NOTE: LAMA is Libertarian Association of Massachusetts]
and the statewide campaigns. Knowing that it would be difficult to ask people to write out checks for different purposes during a single fundraising request, we decided to make a single appeal for funds to LAMA and then approach the larger donors for help with the campaigns.

The breakdown is as follows:

Approximately $11.2K was raised at the convention dinner. However, that total includes approximately $2-3K in monthly contributions to be collected over the year. Of the remaining amount, several of the largest contributors chose to redirect approximately $3K to their favorite campaigns, after I called and explained to them that LAMA  couldn't give the money to campaigns directly, per OCPF rules. The remaining amount, about $6K, went to the LAMA treasury for use in LAMA activities. For comparison, the entire amount raised for the '97 convention was $6400, all of which went to LAMA.

I hope this answers your question. I must stress that none of this was the work of a single person and all of it was planned in advance and known to the board members and convention planners as the strategy of record.

Can we now put this pointless bickering to rest? There's work to be done.

Eli
Elias Israel
eli@promanage-inc.com

 For Release: June 20, 2000 (Boston, MA)
             The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts continues  its strong support for fair and equal ballot access. Fair ballot access requires that the law applies equally to all candidates. In order to ensure fair and equal application of the ballot access laws, Libertarians are among the challengers of the nomination petitions of the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.
            Michael Cloud, CEO of the Carla Howell for U.S. Senate campaign, explains, "If Libertarians have to turn in their signatures by 5:00pm on May 9th, so must Republicans and Democrats. If Libertarians may not solicit signatures from unregistered voters, neither can Republicans or Democrats. If Libertarians may not submit fraudulent signatures, nor may Republicans or Democrats."
            He adds, "If Mr. Robinson wants easier ballot access laws, perhaps he should run in his home state of Connecticut."
            Carla Howell is showing how little difference there is between the Republican version of Big Government and the Democratic version of Big Government. However many other candidates achieve ballot access in this race, Carla Howell is confident she will remain the only choice for people who believe "small government is beautiful."
            "Republicans and Democrats wrote these stringent ballot access requirements to keep rival parties off the ballot," said Elias Israel, Chairman of the Massachusetts Libertarian Party. "But only when they are held to the same standards as everyone else will the Democrats and Republicans have an incentive to reform these laws so that Massachusetts voters will have more choice at the voting booth."
            "Like women and minorities, Libertarians are used to having to work twice as hard to receive half the recognition," said Israel, "but that doesn't mean that Democrats or Republicans should get a free ride when they fail to meet the legal standard."
            David Euchner, Libertarian candidate for US Congress in the Fourth Congressional District, points out, "Distasteful as arbitrary rules are, we must require that these silly laws and rulings be fairly and equally applied. Only in this way can we hope to show that these rules are an insider's game, designed to protect the incumbents and the status quo."
            The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in Massachusetts and in the U.S. The Libertarian Party advocates reducing the size and scope of government, and stands for personal liberty and personal responsibility on all issues. There are 23 Libertarian office holders in Massachusetts and 307 Libertarian office holders across America.

        Libertarians set new vote total records on election day, with more than 401,808 votes cast for Libertarian candidates throughout the state.
        Of particular interest was Libertarian Carla Howell's bid for US Senate. 306,457 votes easily maintains the Libertarian Party's status as a Major Party in Massachusetts. "This vote total is an all-time high for us, and roughly three times her vote totals for State Auditor two years ago" noted Schoaff.
        Over all, Carla Howell defeated the Republican challenger Jack Robinson in more than 170 Massachusetts cities and towns, and set a new record for Libertarian US Senate candidates.....

Hello, LP Friends:
----------------------------
Jacob G. Hornberger wrote:
<<LNC members serving on the Bylaws Committee included LP National Treasurer Mark A. Tuniewicz, who recently and without explanation resigned his post and his membership in the party and who so far has declined to come forward and disclose whether or not he has information about the use of third-party
intermediaries to funnel money to third-party beneficiaries.>>
--------------------------
    With the exception of the recent disclosures by Mssrs. Famularo, Willis & Browne, I don't recall LNC, Inc. or the Browne campaign utilizing 3rd party intermediaries to funnel money to third-party beneficiaries...with one exception:
    In the first quarter of 2000 LNC, Inc. paid about $20,000 in two payments to petitioning firm National Voter Outreach on behalf of the Carla Howell for Governor campaign after having received a similar-sized soft money contribution from a generous Massachusetts donor.  The first of these payments took place on 1/26/00, just five days after the donation was received.  The payments in question were made on the authority of National Director Steve Dasbach and without the knowledge of any LNC officer, including myself and to my knowledge then-national chair David Bergland.
    The issue in this case, raised by me after learning of the transaction several weeks later, was whether or not it constituted an illegal "directed" contribution--whereby a campaign solicits a soft money contribution payable to a national political party while making clear that the donation is to be "passed through" or "directed" to the benefit of a federal candidate's campaign, presumably in violation of individual contributor limits.
    Interestingly, during one of the executive committee teleconferences where this transaction was discussed, then-chair Bergland repeatedly attempted to move the discussion into a closed, executive session.  Since this would have prevented me from disclosing information about it (as I'm doing in this message, for example)to our membership, I strongly opposed this and had to threaten to leave the conference call if that was done--a fairly extreme situation.
    While our general counsel later gave a verbal opinion at my request that the transaction was legal "given the current state of campaign finance enforcement," I continue to question some the facts upon which he based his opinion--facts provided by by Mr. Dasbach.
    For example, Mr. Dasbach denied knowing who had solicited the $20K contribution, which I found to be hard to believe, and claimed that the decision to fund the ballot access expense (originally classified on the LNC's books as "campaign support" then changed later to "ballot access" after the transaction was questioned) was made independently from the contribution, despite the coincidence of dates and the fact that the expenditure was not part of our ballot access budget presented just a short time prior in 12/99.
    In the interest of full disclosure, my recollection from discussions at the time is that Massachusetts LP state chair Elias Israel, as well as Howell campaign manager Michael Emerling Cloud, were both aware of this transaction around the time it was happening.
    Other than this item, I don't recall any use of intermediaries from 1996 when I joined the LNC through the end of my term as national Treasurer earlier in 2001.
    I'd like to stress that these issues have absolutely nothing to do with my resignation as Treasurer and from the LP.  Any suggestion to the contrary is libelous.  I strongly recommend that Mr. Hornberger share this message, it its entirety, with his email distribution list, so as to correct any misconceptions his readers may have inferred from his prior message.
    With best wishes,
    Mark A. Tuniewicz

--- Mike Rollins <mjr@conan.ids.net> wrote:
> >T. Knapp wrote: The next "loot the LP" project -- for which a test run was done last year -- is, as best I can tell, > centered > >in Massachusetts.

>         I assume that you are referring to  Carla Howell?  With all due respects, this
> is a particularly nasty, even defamatory comment.  While I happen to agree that Carla
> probably should not be our Libertarian Party  candidate for President in 2004, I also must
> passionately disagree with your thinly veiled accusation that Carla allegedly is in some
> way corrupt.  My personal observation is that Carla is an honest, sincere, and very hard
> working Libertarian activist.  We all should   be quite proud that we have a woman such as
> Carla Howell active within our party.  I   would love to see hundreds more like her!
        You start from a false assumption, so the remaining comments don't really go to the heart of the issue.
        I was not talking about Carla Howell. I was talking about Carla Howell's *campaign*, which is different thing entirely, and about other efforts originating in Massashusetts.
        I do not know Ms. Howell, and I can assume that everything you say about her is true. Nonetheless, her campaign used exceptionally fraudulent -- even by Willis/Cloud standards, if they have any -- means to raise money; it solicited and received funds from the national party before she was even the LP's nominee for Senator; and its disbursements of funds were conducted primarily into the pockets of Cloud et al rather than into legitimate campaigning.
        The Willis/Cloud business template is fairly straightforward:
        Find a plausible candidate. Get yourself and your shills hired as "staff." Turn on the hype machine and start rolling out bizarre, unsupportable claims about the campaign's potential (or, in the Howell case, flatly false claims about the current situation); wait for gullible Libertarians to write checks. Pass those checks through to your pockets by any means necessary. If the money train loses momentum, go to an LNC that is composed equally of friends and of people who will do just about anything to keep the LP from being embarrassed by your graft, and schmooze them to write you a check from Party funds.
        In the case of the Howell campaign, Cloud got lucky. Despite his ministrations, she performed pretty damn well. Not that that matters: If she had polled 1/2 of 1%, we would have been hearing about what a victory it was, and we'd still be looking at her as a potential 2004 nominee (see "Browne, Harry campaign"). Since she did extremely well, he has her back in harness to pull the money train around the track an *additional* time in 2002.
        My contention is that the current argument about Willis -- carried out through proxy dupes like Mr. Sullivan, since none of the principals would make themselves look like idiots by publicly saying the things they're having him say onb their behalf -- is designed specifically to prolong the matter and keep it isolated to Willis alone until after next year's convention, so that this scam can proceed unimpeded; at the convention, the goal is to elect a "friendly" chair and LNC so that it can be carried over profitably into the 2004 presidential campaign.
        Your mileage may vary, but please note that this scenario does not depend upon the notion of Carla Howell as "corrupt."
        Tom Knapp

        For many years, I took the criticisms of Cloud with a grain of salt.
        But that changed this summer.
 Cloud was in charge of Browne's fundraising in the 1996 election, and either knew or should have known that Willis was working for Browne in defiance of the LNC.   This defiance actually began in the about March of 1995, when  Dasbach asked him to stop and he said he would, when he told the LNC in August that he had stopped in March (when he hadn't)  and that he wouldn't do any more (which he did.)   All of those lies and broken promises resulted in a change in policy in December.    But Willis carried on as before.   Of course,  he was lying and breaking promises all  along, so  what was new?
       Anyway, that Cloud almost surely knew about this isn't really the problem.   It is rather that this summer he attacked the whistleblower--John Famularo.  He suggested that Willis should have lied and claimed that Famularo's documents were false.   This was part of a strategy to get the whistleblower in "big trouble."    Now, if Famularo had done something wrong in obtaining that information (which he  didn't,) then perhaps he should have suffered some punishment.   But what was Cloud doing here?  It was getting Famularo for blowing the whistle.   It was a "clever" ploy to make Famularo shut up.  It was a  strategy to cover up lies and corruption.
       Cloud not only refused to cooperate when asked by our National Chair and so participated  in stonewalling, he attacked  our National Chair,  Jim Lark, for having a  star chamber court and  the like.
       For these reasons, Cloud should have no connection with the Libertarian Party ever again.
       How can we make that happen?   Well, we need leadership in the LP who will have nothing to do with Cloud.
       In particular, those who refuse to break with Cloud (Howell, for example) should get no money or support.
       Please note that Israel and Bisson did their best to protect their political allies-- Browne, Cloud, Bergland, Aryes, and  Dean from even the most minimal  consequences.
       They so have both acted  to protect (and promote in the future) dishonesty in the LP.
       Please note that nothing that the LNC did will prevent Willis and company from operating exactly like they did in 1995.   Browne or Bergland can be the front men.   Willis can play a key role (up to running the entire operation) as a contractor.   As long as their friends are in power in the  LNC, nothing will be done to stop it. But hey, if there is any trouble, they can just pay Willis through the Dean cut out.   All they have to do is lie. And we know that Browne and Willis are liars.   Cloud suggested that Willis tell a further lie.  Anyone believe he would not tell one himself?   Ayres sat in LNC meetings in August of 1995 and listened to Willis tell lies and didn't say a thing.

DAVID EUCHNER E-MAIL ABOUT CLOUD/HOWELL
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 22:34:38 -0000
From: maywood2008 <maywood2008@onebox.com>    [Note: David Euchner]
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Re: Howell: Under budget, but in debt!

        This issue is an ideal way for me to begin my posts on this list. Two weeks ago I relocated from Massachusetts to Tucson. In 2000 I was the LPMA's only candidate for U.S. Representative (ran against Barney Frank) and in 2001 I was campaign chairman for Craig Mathias in a special election for State Representative. I have a great amount of personal knowledge of how the "Committee for Small Government", as well as Carla Howell's other operations, are run.
        --- In lpaz-discuss@y..., Steve Trinward <steve@t...> wrote:...
> Until they [ISRAEL/CLOUD/HOWELL] stop asking other libertarians around the country to keep
> bailing them out of the basic expenses of running a paid-petitioner,
> mail-delivery, low-volunteer effort, allegedly to make life a LOT easier
> for the folks who live in that state ....

        The real problem with the "Small Government Act" (as Carla has dubbed it) has little to do with its support among the VOTERS, and has much more to do with how little support this initiative has among the LIBERTARIAN ACTIVISTS in Massachusetts. There are many reasons why the LPMA rank-and-file does not wholly support this initiative.
        First, the image of the LPMA that is projected nationwide is a little bit misleading. Our candidates are able to raise funds with great success and we're able to successfully manipulate a good amount of the major media, but the simple fact is that we do not field as many candidates or raise as many volunteers as other states are able to do. For example, I was the only Congressional candidate in 2000 out of 10 seats. Also, our vote totals are better than candidates in other states because we run in a one-party state where the GOP activists are en masse defecting to the LPMA or dropping out of politics altogether. We have precious few volunteers for such a large amount of work such as supporting candidates for office. So when Carla Howell announced the Small Government Act and the kind of resources she was expecting from within the state, a lot of people were taken aback and aggravated because this necessarily means that the other candidates are going to suffer from volunteer-drain come the springtime.
        Second, Carla has no understanding of RATIONAL self-interest. She does not realize that when she gets help from others and then does not help others in return (no matter how ridiculously small the amount of help asked of her), that the volunteers will start to catch the drift and stop helping her. For example, in year 2000, she campaigned throughout Massachusetts for U.S. Senate, including many campaign stops in my Congressional district as well as the various districts of the 18 candidates for state legislature. It is not an exaggeration to say that she made more campaign appearances with Harry Browne than she did with the other 19 candidates for Massachusetts office combined. Also, she flat out refused to endorse Craig Mathias for his special election this fall even though he is the LPMA's most decorated local officeholder, a rare libertarian who has actually won an election. She also refused to share with us her list of lawn-sign locations for her 2000 campaign, even with the understanding that we would share our list of locations for 2001 with her and thereby increase her base of supporters for her 2002 race for Governor. Her rationale was that her information was proprietary and that she was not legally bound to divulge that information. But she missed the point: it would be MORAL to divulge that information to us because we would be able to give her value-for-value.
        Third, there are rumors of financial hanky-panky surrounding her campaign for Senate in 2000. Though as libertarians we are naturally opposed to the FEC and are moved to seek repeal of all federal election laws, I cannot automatically condone all violations of those laws as good acts. There is a difference between violating the law ON PRINCIPLE (as Tom Knapp proposes to do) and feigning a principled stance against the law only after getting caught. There are some very good people who have worked on Howell's campaigns, but there are also a few bad apples who would trade principle for personal gain. I am not in a position to be able to prove any hanky-panky on the part of the Howell campaign; but some people have presented some evidence and I have seen no rebuttal of the evidence, and this is enough to fuel rumors.
        Fourth, because of the numerous personnel connections between the Howell and Browne campaigns (most notably Michael Cloud), every scandal that affects Harry Browne affects Carla Howell by extension. Many in the LPMA have decided against joining or staying with the party as a result of LPMA's failure to take a stand against corruption when given the chance with the Browne/Willis matter.
        Fifth, Carla's speech at the LPMA State Convention in February 2001 centered on the theme of taking "a bold approach" to advocating liberty. This sentence alone sounds harmless enough; but what exactly does she mean by this? Essentially, what she means is that there are to be purity tests in the LPMA. Again, I am all for maintaining principle in the "party of principle", but if there is going to be a purity test, then who administers the test? The answer is simple: CARLA HOWELL AND MICHAEL CLOUD. This has offended too many activists, because the "moderates" don't like being called "unlibertarian" and the purists know that Carla Howell is the least qualified to judge what makes another "libertarian" (she is widely known to be poorly read on libertarian philosophy and she only reads the speeches that Michael Cloud writes for her).
        Finally, because of Michael Cloud's heavy influence on Carla, it is hypothesized that the real reason for starting this Committee For Small Government was to allow Carla to become the financial beneficiary of the LP. Cloud loves to bring up how Carla made only $8,000 in 2000 as a result of campaigning full-time for her Senate race. Well, if she takes a 15% commission on a million dollars raised for the Committee for Small Government, then she can make $150,000 for herself. She can make $300,000 if she raises two million. This alone is not reason to oppose the Small Government Act, but this reason combined with the previous five points add up to, in my opinion, a compelling argument to withhold support for the SGA on principle.
        For these and for many other reasons, Carla Howell has failed to energize the LPMA rank-and-file behind her and her Small Government Act. In addition to those who, like me, withheld their support altogether, there are many more who are volunteering but are not nearly energetic about their work.
        I am a firm believer that libertarians anywhere should send their money to the most compelling cause TO THEM. There are a lot of people in Massachusetts who have worked hard to make their campaigns attractive for interstate fundraising. But before considering the chances of success, we must first consider whether the cause is noble and worthy of our honest and principled money. Carla Howell's Small Government Act has great chances of success by my standards, but by my standards it is not worthy of my honest and principled money.
        David Euchner
        Tucson, AZ

Subject:           [MA-LIB] My Side of the Story@
Date:               Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:19:33 -0000
From:              "fpgroup" <fpgroup    yahoo.com>
To:                  MA-LIBERTY@yahoogroups.com

           There has been enough mention of my name, in venues such as this, and I've received enough phone calls, that I would very much now like to go public with my side of the story. First of all, what you've heard is true; I have resigned from the LPMA State Committee and changed my party registration to unenrolled and I will not renew my membership in the LPMA or the national Party when these memberships lapse. I now consider myself a "small-l" libertarian, and, while my political beliefs have not changed, I no longer believe that the Libertarian Party is the right vehicle to reach the goals we all share (well, mostly; see below). Party of my thinking here revolves around the various scandals that have damaged our reputation, and part of it comes from the rather rigid orthodoxy of those who lead the (especially Massachusetts) party at the moment. I spent many years as a party activist, and as a Libertarian serving in both appointed and elected office. I held what is arguably the highest elected office in the Town of Ashland (Chairman of the Board of Selectmen), and worked very hard for limited government, lower taxes, and greater personal liberty and individual responsibility. I spoke out against government encroachment on the private sector, and I won many (but of course not all) battles. I paid a personal price in all of this, but that comes with the territory; I am very proud of what I was able to accomplish. While not all of my personal beliefs are hard-core Libertarian, I remain committed to the cause of freedom. So why leave the Party?
           Well, I have a number of reasons. One is that, after many years of heavy political involvement, I need a break. I need time to think, and to recharge my batteries. I want to focus on other ventures that got backburnered due to those many late nights at Town meetings and Party functions. I expect I'll be back in politics at some point, but I have no plans right now. I will shortly wind down my appointed positions in Town, and become simply a private citizen.
           But my primary reasons for leaving the Party derive from a number of experiences during my recent run for State Representative. And that leads me to Carla Howell.
           Now, Carla and I have always had what I considered to be a good relationship. I think we knew each other well, and certainly respected one another, and we both supported the Party and its goals. I spent my time in office, putting the theory into practice, and she was our flagship candidate, getting the high visibility we needed (and still need). The party needs lots of people, with a variety of skills, in many, many roles. We must tolerate our individual differences on issues if the Party is to grow, and look towards the day of a Libertarian majority in elected office. Sadly, I concluded that the LPMA is not a big tent, it is not about the business of broadening membership, and it is not a growing, vibrant political force. It is a club, and perhaps even a cult - without, of course, the kool-aid, but with the same cliquish behavior that typifies that of many a third-grade playground.
           At the state convention last year, Carla and I spoke of getting together for dinner sometime, with our respective significant others, and to building on the momentum of our respective activities. Imagine my surprise, when, just a few months later, she refused to provide an endorsement to my campaign that I assumed would be no problem whatsoever. She stated that she felt I wasn't being "bold" enough in my campaign, especially with respect to the issue of guns. She said too many Libertarians serving in local office were simply "wimpy", and I guess that included me.
           I was stunned, to say the least; "shocked" is a more appropriate term indeed. I was further surprised that the Howell campaign would not provide my campaign with a list of locations within my district that previously sported Howell lawn signs (during her run for US Senate). I was told this information was "proprietary" to the campaign. This, mind you, was a campaign that I had wholeheartedly supported and to which I had donated a not insignificant amount of money. Stunned really wasn't the word for it.
           I started to think about what was really going on here, and came to two conclusions. First, I believe Carla saw me (legitimately, I might add) as a potential competitor for higher office. I had talked about running for Governor, and also for Treasurer and possibly Secretary of State. But I believe I would make an excellent Governor, given my political and business experience, and my long history of involvement on Beacon Hill. Why not have a primary battle? I think it would be healthy for the Party to really hash out issues, and to have more than one highly-visible candidate. Of course, no one can blame Carla for fearing this possibility, and no one should expect her to support a potential competitor. Except - this isn't about Carla, or Craig; it's about the Party. Wouldn't her campaign for Governor be even more legitimate, visible, and even viable with a Libertarian in the House of Representatives? The LP needs to win partisan races in order to be legitimate, and I had a very good shot. The lack of support from Carla, and the LPMA in general, was at the very least disheartening. This is not in any was meant as a slight to the individual Libertarians who worked very hard on my campaign. But the LPMA really didn't seem to see this as the opportunity that it was, and I believe Carla was more than a little influential here.
           The other conclusion had more serious repercussions. As I noted, I am not a rigid Libertarian. I also believe in gradualism, building the future we all want a little as a time. Judging from Carla's literature, she expects to be elected and then become not governor, but in fact queen, simply "shredding" every law in sight that isn't 100% in compliance with her vision of Libertarian orthodoxy. Earth to Carla - this is a democracy, and it doesn't work that way. Democracy is, in fact, based on compromise, which is essential to the process and our overall stability as a society. The people need to be convinced, not simply told they are wrong and ignored..
           I came to call Carla and her followers the "Taliban" wing of the LPMA. They would put us all in a burka of their vision of what liberty is, and stone anyone who disagrees in the slightest. That's small-tent thinking, and the LPMA (and the LP in general) will never become a force in Massachusetts or American politics with such an approach at the forefront. And those who have yet to come around to our way of thinking are simply going to be turned off by the message. Example: what's with Carla's huge emphasis on gun laws? Doesn't she know that only 3% of people in the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts own guns? And while this number may be at least skewed a little by our (albeit absurd) gun laws, most citizens will simply see Carla's stand on this issue as mindlessly rigid and therefore as an excuse not to vote for her at all. This is why I focused on taxes, an issue that will attract the voters we need, not turn them off. There's already momentum here.
           Rigid orthodoxy is the wrong approach, and the wrong vision for the LPMA. It won't work. We could replace Carla Howell with a piece of software that, given an issue as input, would simply spit out the party platform, followed, of course, by "no exceptions, no excuses". That's not an acceptable, viable, or even vaguely functional approach to growing the Party and getting the laws we need repealed or passed, as the case may be. All-or-nothing positions (and this includes the Small Government Act) are doomed to failure, and failure is something the LPMA has had quite enough of. The Party will only be judged by its success in electing candidates, and there is little hope on this front at the moment.
           I'm going to predict here that Carla will be utterly humiliated in the Governor's race. She did well against a weak Republican in the Senate contest (and, as weak as he was, he still beat her), and against strong Democratic and Republican candidates this year, she will get creamed. She'd like to run for President in 2004, but, then, there's that Gary Johnson guy. I believe he won't run, since he knows he can't win as a Libertarian (there is no point in running if you know you're going to lose), so Carla's fairly safe here. Good for her.
           But bad for the Party. So, given the dominance of the Party by thinking that cannot succeed, I decided it would be a much better use of my time to turn my attention to other matters. I am not at this point going to say the LPMA is cooked and will not survive, but there is that possibility. This is in no way to unfairly criticize those who have worked so hard to build the Party - I was, after all, one of them. I truly believe they have done the best they can, and I am proud of my association with them. But, as they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. It's time for a new tack, in my humble opinion, starting with candidates that think, reason, excite, recruit, and avoid becoming what are essentially fascist dictators. And fortunately there are a few of those thinking candidates, most notably Ilana Freedman.
           I hope this serves to clarify my position. I realize that there are many who will be displeased with what I've just written; so be it. While I would be happy to clarify any of the points I've made here, as we say in the UNIX world, please send your flames to /dev/null. I have no interest in participating in extended debates or pissing contests. Please take or leave what I've said above as you see fit. But I truly hope that Party leadership will realize that the current path is not going to lead to success, and time really is of the essence.
           My best wishes to all of you (yes, you too, Carla).
           Craig Mathias

From: Carol Moore <carol@carolmoore.net>
Not sure what the reporter thinks is the
"scandal"--that they are living together??
+++
<Article deleted...>

Subject: Re: Howell/Cloud "Expose" in MA paper
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 14:23:18 -0600
From: thomaslknapp@yahoo.com
Reply-To: lpus-misc@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)

On 5 Feb 2002, at 12:23, jhunters-ml@epostoffice.com wrote:
> At 08:45 PM 2/4/2002, you wrote:
> >The "Scandal" SHOULD be that they have taken a salary in every
> >venture they have touched ... And never (to my knowledge at least,
> >and I've been on both their e- and smail-mail lists since early 2000
> >or so) have they made this clear in their fervent and urgent appeals
> >for donations.
>
> So drawing a salary is a "Scandal" for a party that supposedly
> believes in the benefits of a free-market?

        I disagree with Steve that taking a salary is a "scandal."
        On the other hand, there is certainly room for disagreement on the particular case at hand.
        We've seen numerous fundraising appeals from the Small Government Committee. All of them go something like "the petitioners are working, right now. If you don't send money by the time they finish, we won't be able to keep our commitment to pay them. The printing bill needs to be paid. We can't pay it if you don't send money."
        Not "Michael and I are each taking a salary that amounts to more than a full-time, minimum wage job out of this; and our household income from the campaigns, over the last two years, including his fundraising commissions, has averaged out to at least $53,000 per year, not counting meals and lodging for which we may have been reimbursed where the guy who works at the convenience store is not, and not counting any 'real' jobs we may also have. Send money, or we may be late with the cable bill."
        Now, the latter was intended to be sarcastic, although the numbers are conservative and accurate. I don't have a problem with Cloud or Howell making a living while spreading liberty. I _do_ have a problem with hyperbolic, "we're in a bad spot" fundraising appeals that say "the peons and the people we signed contracts with will get the shaft if you don't pony up," when there is obviously enough money coming in to keep the figureheads in pork and beans.

> And, Steve, no matter how many time you say so, most people are no
> interested in or willing to trade their present lifestyle in for some
> over romanticized, bohemian political activist lifestyle in which they
> are "so committed" to doing everything for free, that they are forced
> into living out of a van (by the river!) to make up for the lack of
> income.

        It's less about the amount of money or salary than it is about pretending that an organization is starving for money when, in fact, its principals think it's doing well enough to pay them a salary -- a salary which, rightly calculated to include Cloud's commission take, puts them well into the upper middle class.
> Yours is perverted dream, that the LP can grow into a political force
> entirely on the backs of volunteers.

The LP has two choices:
1) Grow into a political force on the backs of volunteers, or
2) Don't grow into a political force.

        If you want to talk about "growing," we can. The LP's membership in Massachusetts grew by 17 net new members in 2000 and 26 net new members in 2001, the two years in which Howell and Cloud have been the moving, "professional" force in that state's libertarian movement. Who was taking home $53K to grow it in 1999, when it grew by 124 net new members? Or in 1998, when it grew by 150 net new members? Or  in 1997, when it grew by 29, or in 1996, when it grew by 195?
        Yes, Massachusetts has grown (slightly) when, as a whole, the LP is shrinking. But so have some other state parties. Is someone taking home $53K/year to grow them, or are they growing through volunteer efforts?
        How many Libertarians can Howell and Cloud be credited with electing to office? How many policy changes can they be credited with causing? How many voters have they attracted who will continue to vote for LP candidates? How many net new members have they brought into the LP? And, based on those numbers, is $53K a year a good investment in their services? I wouldn't attempt to force anyone to stop making such an investment if they believe that it is a good one; that doesn't mean I can't point out where it may not be.
Tom Knapp

Subject: Re: Howell/Cloud "Expose" in MA paper
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:33:29 EST
From: Carolinnus@aol.com
Reply-To: lpus-misc@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)

In a message dated 2/5/02 1:28:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
jhunters-ml@epostoffice.com writes:
<< I completely disagree. I want them, and others like them, to be
compensated for their efforts. >>

    Having candidates making money on their own campaigns is a very slippery slope which will lead to people running campaigns "just" to get a paycheck. I have never heard of political candidates getting paid to "run" for "any" political party.  I have heard of candidates loaning money to their own campaigns, but I have yet to hear of any candidates (outside of the LP in Massachusetts) getting paid to seek political office.  Campaign workers getting paid?  Yes.  Candidates paying themselves to run would lose my support and respect.

Only interested in Liberty,
R. Lee Wrights

Subject: Re: Howell/Cloud "Expose" in MA paper
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:46:37 -0600
From: "Steve Trinward" <livlib@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: lpus-misc@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)

From: thomaslknapp@yahoo.com
On 5 Feb 2002, at 12:23, jhunters-ml@epostoffice.com wrote:
 > At 08:45 PM 2/4/2002, you wrote:
 > >The "Scandal" SHOULD be that they have taken a salary in every
 > >venture they have touched ... And never (to my knowledge at least,
 > >and I've been on both their e- and smail-mail lists since early 2000
 > >or so) have they made this clear in their fervent and urgent appeals
 > >for donations.
 >
 > So drawing a salary is a "Scandal" for a party that supposedly
 > believes in the benefits of a free-market?

TLK: I disagree with Steve that taking a salary is a "scandal."

SAT: As I have explained, the "scandal" was in not disclosing this to contributors. IN the case of a candidate, that is mandatory; in the case of a referendum, it should also be ...

TLK: On the other hand, there is certainly room for disagreement on the particular case at hand.
        We've seen numerous fundraising appeals from the Small Government Committee. All of them go something like "the petitioners are working, right now. If you don't send money by the time they finish, we won't be able to keep our commitment to pay them. The printing bill needs to be paid. We can't pay it if you don't send money."
        Not "Michael and I are each taking a salary that amounts to more than a full-time, minimum wage job out of this; and our household income from the campaigns, over the last two years, including his fundraising commissions, has averaged out to at least $53,000 per year, not counting meals and lodging for which we may have been reimbursed where the guy who works at the convenience store is not, and not counting any 'real' jobs we may also have.  Send money, or we may be late with the cable bill."
        Now, the latter was intended to be sarcastic, although the numbers are conservative and accurate. I don't have a problem with Cloud or Howell making a living while spreading liberty. I _do_ have a problem with hyperbolic, "we're in a bad spot" fundraising appeals that say "the peons and the people we signed contracts with will get the shaft if you don't pony up," when there is obviously enough money coming in to keep the figureheads in pork and beans.

SAT: YEP, THAT is the "scandal" I was talking about ... among others (all involving money, BTW, not 'living arrangements or privacy issues').

 > And, Steve, no matter how many time you say so, most people are no
 > interested in or willing to trade their present lifestyle in for
 > some over romanticized, bohemian political activist lifestyle in
 > which they are "so committed" to doing everything for free, that
 > they are forced into living out of a van (by the river!) to make
 > up for the lack of income.

TLK: It's less about the amount of money or salary than it is about pretending that an organization is starving for money when, in fact, its principals think it's doing well enough to pay them a salary -- a salary which, rightly calculated to include Cloud's commission take, puts them well into the upper middle class.

SAT: BINGO!

 > Yours is perverted dream, that the LP can grow into a political
 > force entirely on the backs of volunteers.

TLK: The LP has two choices:
1) Grow into a political force on the backs of volunteers, or
2) Don't grow into a political force.

        If you want to talk about "growing," we can. The LP's membership in Massachusetts grew by 17 net new members in 2000 and 26 net new members in  2001, the two years in which Howell and Cloud have been the moving, "professional" force in that state's libertarian movement. Who was taking home $53K to grow it in 1999, when it grew by 124 net new members? Or in 1998, when it grew by 150 net new members? Or in 1997, when it grew by 29, or in 1996, when it grew by 195?
        Yes, Massachusetts has grown (slightly) when, as a whole, the LP is shrinking. But so have some other state parties. Is someone taking home $53K/year to grow them, or are they growing through volunteer efforts?
        How many Libertarians can Howell and Cloud be credited with electing to office? How many policy changes can they be credited with causing? How many voters have they attracted who will continue to vote for LP candidates? How many net new members have they brought into the LP? And, based on those numbers, is $53K a year a good investment in their services? I wouldn't attempt to force anyone to stop making such an investment if they believe that it is a good one; that doesn't mean I can't point out where it may not be.
Tom Knapp

SAT: If folks would stop reacting defensively to any suggestion that  "effectiveness at advancing the cause of Liberty" might be a good yardstick in these matters ... Those of us making such suggestions might be motivated to find 'kindler gentler' ways of suggesting it ...
=====
Peace, Liberty ... and "Hope"
Steve Trinward

        My question about the "sign" story resulted in some remarkable answers. The most recent revelation has nothing to do with signs, however.
        Craig Mathias was running for State Representative as a Libertarian in a special election.  Mathias was chair
of his town council (board of selectmen is what they call it in Massachusetts.)
        Anyway, Mathias had received a contribution of $100 from George Phillies and in the course of informal converstation at an LP social event, reported that fact to Eli Israel, the state chairman of Libertarian Party.
         Israel is reported to have responded that if Mathias would return the check to Phillies, then Israel would guarantee that Israel got that $100 and more.
        Mathias made no immediate reponse.   He supposedly replied by letter that he would not return Phillies contribution--he had no reason to do so.    He basically said that he didn't want to get into the middle of any disagreements Israel had with Phillies.
       Israel didn't help the campaign.
       Wow!  Wow!
       Here we have the sole state representative race during the off year.   Rather than the state chair supporting the LP nominee for that seat, he instead conditions his possible support on the candidate behaving in a petty way--refusing to accept campaign contribution from the state chair's political enemy.
       A decent state chair..any decent person..would just say something like I guess Phillies isn't always wrong, and then contribute as well.
      This is bad anyway, but when it is one you the highest level office holders in the state (chairman of a town council is way up their when many of our LP public officials are public weighers, constables, or soil and water commissioners,) this is just awful.
      Mathias' campaign chairman, David Euchner reportedly discussed the matter further with Israel.  He explained that he and Mathias wanted to stay out of this battle with Phillies.
      That is when Israel reportedly told Euchner that they were either with him and Cloud and Howell, or else they were against them.   If they sided with his crew, then Mathias would win.  If  they tried to stay out of the fray, then Mathias would lose.
      There are two possibilities.  One posibility is that Israel thought that with the state party's help, we could actually have a state representative elected.  But he would only let that happen, if that person took the right side in some petty internal LP squabble!   That is horrible!   (If Israel was correct, then we don't have a Libertarian in the Massachusetts state house because of Israel!)
      The other possibility is that Israel didn't think Mathias could win, but lied.   He said he could make Mathias a winner when he really couldn't. The purpose of the lie was to manipulate Mathias into siding with Israel in some petty internal LP squabble.
      Mathias did try to stay out of the fray.   Israel was true to his word, and didn't help Mathias.  Mathias lost.
     As I have said before, I doubt whether Mathias could have won even if he had a decent state chair instead of what looks to be a manipulative, vindictive, monster. He would have done better, though.   He might have been in a better position to win next time.
      But what did happen is that Mathias quit. Mathias voted for John Hospers in 72.   He had been on the Massachuessets LP state committee.   He was chairman of his towncouncil.
      And these reports show that Eli Israel ran him out of the Libertarian Party because he refused to take Israel's side in his ugly feud with George Phillies.
     This guy is going to create an atmosphere of productive teamwork?

Subject:   Israel--state chair malpractice
Date:      Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:08:07 -0500
From:     Bill Woolsey <wwoolsey@comcast.net>
To:         LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)

        A few weeks ago, I reported stories I had heard about Eli Israel's behavior in relationship to the Mathias campaign.
        [Richard N.] Freedman later posted that Israel and his wife had contributed to that campaign and had done volunteer work on the  campaign.
        Schaffer then asked if those who had been attacking Israel would apologize.
        I checked into the story and for the most part, nothing Freedman wrote is inconsistent with my reports.
        Israel contributed to Mathias' campaign and provided help before he found out that Phillies  had contributed as well.   It was then that the Mathias campaign received the ultimatum (return Phillies check) which the Mathias campaign rejected.
        The only item that I still have a question about is that Israel's wife held placards for the Mathias  campaign at some point.   It seems to me that the most likely time was at the general election which would entail aid by Israel's wife after the alleged ultimatum.  I meant to seek  clarification on the matter, but I didn't.
        Freedman makes some distinction between Israel being uninterested vs. disinterested in the Mathias/Howell dispute over obtaining the names of Libertarian volunteers in his district.
       I believe here we have a difference.   While both accounts agree that Israel was involved in the matter, Freedman seems to imply that Israel was neutral.   My reports are that Israel basically conveyed the demands of Howell and Cloud to the Mathias campaign and stated that they (the Mathias campaign) is either with me, Howell and Cloud or against us.
       To describe such a position as "disinterested" would be highly inaccurate.   This isn't to suggest that Freedman wasn't describing events  accurately as far as he knows.     We may have a situation where it is Mathias' campaign manager (Euchner) vs. Israel's version of  a private conversation.
       Anyway, I think it is fair to say that I believe that I have no need to apologize for my view that Israel's behavior was monstrous.   If I was taken to mean that Israel has never, ever done anything good, I apologize.

  I agree that the meeting should be open, as was the one in Indianapolis where any of us could just wander in and observe.  I assume that LNC members are not forbidden from reporting on the meetings to members, including in e-mails, newsletters, etc.
    The big issue is whether the LNC is going to try to come up with ONE strategy and then IMPOSE it on all the states or a range of integrated alternatives, operational and strategic, perhaps for decision by the larger body in 2002. While a few big wigs assured me the latter was not the case, the fact the meetings are
not open makes one wonder.
     Also, while I have been waiting for the typed versions of all the suggestions in the brain storm, I did keep notes and wrote down 95% of them, which I reviewed yesterday.  Some of the suggestions (especially from staffers and LNC members) were rather disturbing because they put too much power in, or dealt with the pet
issues or strategies of, the staff and the LNC.
   I would therefore suggest that not only do we demand meetings be open, but that we demand that a range of integrated alternatives be offered, not one final and unassailable one.
Carol Moore
Chair, LPDC
202-635-3739
http://www.lp-dc.org
http://www.carolmoore.net

Lois Kaneshiki <lois@nb.net wrote:>

>  Dear fellow state chairs,
>
> Apparently a majority of the LNC voted at the Dec LNC meeting to make the
> March and subsequent SPT meetings completely closed to other LP members.
>I am in the process of trying to change this, but it looks like it will take
> a mail balloting of LNC members, which is a somewhat slow process.
>> If you feel strongly about this issue, I suggest you contact LNC members
> asap.  I have included their email addresses below.
>> In liberty,
>> Lois Kaneshiki LNC - At Large Chair, LPPa * * * * *

    The purpose of having at least one meeting "closed" as an experiment was to give the participants a chance to speculate more freely and more openly about the possibilities open to the party. Where there isn't a safe place to be wrong, there's no way to learn what's right.
    Personally, I doubt very much that any closed-door alliances could stand anywhere in the LP for very long, and especially not among this highly visible group of people.
    And given the amount of effort it takes to get Libertarians to agree on pizza toppings, I don't think any sane person would suggest dictating a strategic plan to them. This will have to be developed, taught, coached, sold, and communicated not only to the state party leaderships, but with them as well.
    That is a delicate balancing act, and a tall order, but what other choice have we got?
Eli Israel
eisrael@lpma.org

> If you are afraid to be "wrong" in an open meeting, why would you not
> be afraid to be "wrong" in a closed one?  Surely you don't believe
> everyone present will agree with you in EITHER case.
>
> In terms of the "experiment" idea, this "experiment" runs the risk of
> alienating the support of the state affiliates and creating more
> suspicion, as Carol Moore has already expressed.
>
> Is that what you think we need at this stage in the process?
>
> We must demonstrate courage in this process, which requires openness,
> not a Soviet bloc or CIA-style back room operation.
> Lois Kaneshiki

     If that is what you hear me saying, then I'm afraid you've heard incorrectly.
      Perhaps you want to try asking me another way.

Elias Israel
eisrael@lpma.org

     We have now come to such a state of self-aggrandizement that some members of the Libertarian National Committee apparently believe that all they have to do is wish to make it so.
    Elias Israel and Steve Givot have agreed -- Let every creature which inhabits the earth hold its breath in anticipation! -- that the matter of Browne, Willis, et al, will be settled in full or be dead, gone and ignored after the stroke of midnight, Sunday, August 26, in the year of our Lord, 2001.
     One is inclined to suspect they and others of their mindset spent far too much time as children singing aloud the words to the theme from "Camelot," in which even the weather responds fully and immediately to the whims of rulers who cannot control their own anger and passions. This is the ultimate fantasy of totalitarians....Browne, Willis, et al, will end when they say it ends, and not one moment later.
     Perhaps, with just seven days remaining until the "two weeks" prior to the August LNC meeting, this would be an appropriate time for LP national chairman to post in the the responses he has received to his inquiries.  After all, as Israel himself has written:
     "1) As Steve has mentioned, any who testify must submit the
      substance of their testimony in writing. It must be done at
     least two weeks prior to our August meeting so that
      everyone can have a chance to absorb it. If there is something
      substantive for anyone to report, then I don't think we can
      understand it and react to it off the cuff and expect a wise
      and careful result to come out. We must have time to understand
      and respond."

     IF the members of the LP are to have their opportunity to examine, add to, respond to or refute any of the information provided in the responses from Sharon Ayres, David Bergland, Harry Browne, Michael Emerling Cloud, Steve Dasbach, Jack Dean, John Famularo, Perry Willis, Bill Winter and others, then they too should have it available in time to respond prior to the LNC meeting.

KenS
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
 >Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:42:15 -0500
 >From: "D. Mark Nelson" <lpiachair@home.com>
 >To: LNC <lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org>
 >Subject: Re: [LNC-Discuss] Famularo's Response
 >
 >I strongly echo Eli's sentiments about ending this in August, and will not
 >support any process which consciously prolongs the matter beyond that point.  I
 >consider this issue to be a vastly unproductive use of time, and rue that it
 >possibly sets a precedent for LNC "investigations" that most likely will be
 >abused.  We must act clearly and decisively on the substantiated facts that are
 >available in August, and move on.  The LNC needs to grow out of the cycle of
 >prolonged discussions about relatively petty issues, and focus our energy on
 >larger issues of strategy and policy.
 >
 >Mark Nelson
 >
 >
 >Elias Israel wrote:
 >
 >>  I should add that I can go along with this "testimony" thing if and  only if
 >>  it results in ending this matter in August. This is the other reasoning
 >>  behind getting the substance of each person's testimony ahead of time; it
 >>  can permit responses from involved parties if they wish to make them.
 >>
 >>  What's more, I don't believe it to be in the responsibility or the authority
 >>  of the LNC to investigate random charges, no matter how passionately they
 >>  are made. Onto those with charges to bring falls the burden of investigating
 >>  and proving them.
 >>
 >>  Otherwise, every angry activist with an axe to grind will line up to keep
 >>  using the LNC the way they have been: as a bludgeon with which to hurt their
 >>  political or personal enemies through endless charges, counter-charges,
 >>  allusions, innuendo, and hearsay.
 >>
 >>  I anxiously await the day when this committee will finally rise up, refuse
 >>  to be abused in that manner, and decide to get back to party business.
 >>
 >>  I'm sick of this issue. Quixotic though it may be, I'm going to try to  keep
 >>  my future comments to valuable party business and not this offensive
 >>  inquisition.
 >>
 >>  Elias Israel
 >>  eisrael@lpma.org
 >>  www.eliasisrael.org
 >>
 >>  ----- Original Message -----
 >>  From: "Elias Israel" <eisrael@lpma.org>
 >>  To: "LNC" <lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org>
 >>  Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2001 10:22 PM
 >>  Subject: RE: [LNC-Discuss] Famularo's Response
 >>
 >>  > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 >>  >
 >>  >
 >>  > Steve Givot and I spent some time ironing out our differences on this
 >>  > idea the other night. Happily, we emerged closer to agreement.
 >>  >
 >>  > I can support the idea of bringing people to LV to "testify" under the
 >>  > following minimal set of ground rules:
 >>  >
 >>  > 1) As Steve has mentioned, any who testify must submit the substance of
 >>  > their testimony in writing. It must be done at least two weeks prior to
 >>  > our August meeting so that everyone can have a chance to absorb it. If
 >>  > there is something substantive for anyone to report, then I don't think
 >>  > we can understand it and react to it off the cuff and expect a wise and
 >>  > careful result to come out. We must have time to understand and
 >>  > respond.
 >>  >
 >>  > 2) We must act on nothing that does not have credible evidence.
 >>  > Opinions, hearsay, and innuendos must be thrown out completely.
 >>  >
 >>  > 3) Everything that is presented as evidence must include corroborating
 >>  > information demonstrating its authenticity and origin. Anything without
 >>  > a credible chain of events linking it from its origin to the present
 >>  > day should be thrown out. We must only act on information that a
 >>  > reasonable person would believe is authentic and unaltered.
 >>  >
 >>  > 4) Any accusations of wrongdoing concerning events prior to January
 >>  > 1997 -- and the evidence for them -- must be brought forward in time
 >>  > for the upcoming LNC meeting. Anything not brought forward by that time
 >>  > should be declared moot. We cannot allow the LNC (and the LP) to be
 >>  > constantly derailed by new charges and counter-charges for events long
 >>  > ago over which none of us has any control.
 >>  >
 >>  > 5) Anyone accused of wrongdoing must have a legitimate chance to
 >>  > repond. As in any other proceeding, the defense goes last.
 >>  >
 >>  > 6) All who testify must declare any conflicts of interest they may have
 >>  > relating to the proceedings or the events on which they testify, using
 >>  > the same standard as members of the LNC now must do.
 >>  >
 >>  > Probably, Mr. Hall could think of a few additional groundrules to
 >>  > further safeguard the committee from acting imperfectly by -- for
 >>  > example -- causing punishment to fall on those that the committee knows
 >>  > or should know are innocent of the accusations. (Of such mistakes are
 >>  > libel suits made, after all.)
 >>  >
 >>  > But I think that these minimal guidelines will keep us focused on what
 >>  > the committee seems to want to do: to find out all that can reasonably
 >>  > be ascertained and to act in accordance with Libertarian reason and in
 >>  > the best long-term interests of the party.
 >>  >
 >>  > I understand that we all want this matter to be dealt with as promptly
 >>  > and as decently as possible. I have concerns about inviting new
 >>  > hostilities in this instance, but perhaps with these minimal guidelines
 >>  > we can reduce the risk associated with hearing them.
 >>  >
 >>  > I am opposed to bringing anyone in without these guidelines, because I
 >>  > believe that it would amount to allowing anyone to use the LNC for an
 >>  > inquisition or a personal vendetta, and would tend to lengthen this
 >>  > debacle rather than resolve it.
 >>  >
 >>  > Elias Israel
 >>  > eisrael@lpma.org
 >>  > www.eliasisrael.org

Subject: Re: LNC Action regarding Perry Willis
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 05:29:27 -0700
From: Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org>
Reply-To: lpus-misc@dehnbase.org
To: LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)

"Thomas L. Knapp" wrote:

> 2. I would like to thank Joe Dehn for his strident opposition to the
> motion and to append my endorsement to the substance of his comments
> on it. It is my recollection that Mr. Dehn abstained from voting on
> amendments to the motion because of its absurd and insulting
> character; I do not recall if he voted against its adoption or if he
> abstained from that vote as well.

There were actually three motions which passed relating to the "Willis
matter".   It was the first one, proposed by Elias Israel, that I termed
insulting and ridiculous. SEE BELOW  I abstained from voting on the amendments,
except that I did vote for the motion to substitute a completely different
proposal put forth by Ben Scherrey which I also considered inadequate
as a response to the whole situation but which was much stronger and
avoided the most offensive aspects of Israel's motion.  The motion to
substitute Scherrey's language failed on a tie 8:8 vote (with the Chair
abstaining).  The various amendments proposed by others did improve on
Israel's original proposal and eliminated the most insulting paragraph,
but I still considered it totally inadequate (especially since it still
contained that "no further action shall be taken" paragraph) and I again
abstained on the final vote.

>
> 3. I must most stridently repudiate the declaration in
> the final
> paragraph of the motion as passed which indicates that
> the LNC
> considers that matter "closed." Said declaration is
> about as credible
> and has about as much effect as Louis XVI's
> declaration in 1787 that
> the Estates General would not convene until 1792, and
> is likely to
> elicit similar results.
>
> The substance of the motion was that two types of
> organizations will
> be affected. "Willis organizations," defined roughly
> as organizations
> owned or controlled by Willis, will not be able to
> rent the LP list,
> advertise in LP News, or serve as vendors or
> contractors to the LP
> for five years (the original motion specified two
> years, and the
> definitions of the organizations I am describing were
> also clarified
> by amendment). Organizations with which Willis is
> "associated," but
> which he does not own or control, will be able to do
> these things,
> but under the more restrictive policy for external
> parties rather
> than the lenient terms afforded, for example, most LP
> campaigns. I
> trust that I have accurately captured the substance of
> the motion in
> this paragraph, and will amend as necessary if it is
> incorrect.
>
> I expect that draft minutes of the meeting at which
> the resolution
> was adopted will be available in the near future, and
> ask that LPUS
> readers rely on those draft minutes and their
> subsequent adopted form
> as the basis for any reproduction of the motion
> itself. While I
> believe that I have in my possession the ultimate form
> of the motion,
> I cannot be sure and do not wish to spread any
> misinformation
> pertaining to its actual text.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas L. Knapp

ELIAS ISRAEL'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL MENTIONED ABOVE
   Subject: Willis censure resolution - version originally proposed by Israel
  Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 22:16:44 -0700
  From: Joe Dehn <jwd3@dehnbase.org
  Reply-To: lpus-misc@dehnbase.org
  To: LPUS-MISC@dehnbase.org (LP business - miscellaneous discussion)
           I have been asked about the original version of the resolution passed  the LNC at its August 2001 meeting, the version originally proposed  by Elias Israel before being amended.
           Here is that text -- again, this is NOT what was adopted, but rather what Israel originally presented to the LNC:
           ==
           Whereas John Famularo has presented evidence to the Libertarian  National Committee on April 21, 2001 that Perry Willis, while National  Director of the Libertarian Party, performed work for the 1996 Harry  Browne for President campaign in violation of LNC rules,
           And whereas Perry Willis subsequently admitted that he had indeed  performed such work, in contradiction to his previous statements,
           And whereas no additional evidence has been presented to the  Libertarian National Committee on this matter concerning Perry Willis  or any other Libertarian,
           Therefore, the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Perry  Willis for performing said work on the 1996 Harry Browne for President  campaign while employed as Libertarian National Director, and for  denying to his employer that he had done so.
           We also resolve that neither the Libertarian National Committee nor the  National Director shall engage Perry Willis directly as either an  employee or a contractor for a minimum period of two (2) years.
          We further resolve that Perry Willis and organizations with which he  may be affiliated may only purchase advertising in LP News and/or rent  the Libertarian national mailing list subject to the terms and  conditions required in the LNC policy manual for external customers.
           The Libertarian National Committee further resolves that this issue is  closed, and no further action shall be taken unless additional credible  evidence is presented to the committee.

The GENERAL e-list of the MA LP has been shutdown due to financial concerns for the Howell Campaign.

Apparently the campaign lost contributors/supporters shortly after an E-ZINE article by Steve Trinward at WWW.RATIONALREVIEW.COM and a negative piece appearing in the Metro West of the Herald a couple of
days later.

In order to help supress a possible discussion of these issues, the GENERAL list was closed.
 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:34:53 +0000
From: marktun@attbi.com
To: George D. Phillies <phillies@WPI.EDU
Subject: Re: FYI

George,

        Thanks so much for the two forwards.  You may distribute this response or any portion thereof as you see fit.
        Regarding the censoring and closure of LPMA's email discussion list, this certainly isn't the first time this has happened.  During the months leading up to the 2000 LP Convention, LPMA list-manager Muni Savyon would routinely review messages before they hit the list and delete those with political discussion that was critical of Browne, Bergland, Howell, and Cloud.
        I know, because it happened to my postings repeatedly. When I brought it to LPMA Chair Elias Israel's attention, he refused to take any action against Savyon.
        This is a extension of the national LP leadership culture that says it's OK to silence or ignore your internal LP opponents (either in email, LP News, or at events) rather than engage them in open, honest debate. It's anti-libertarian, as are those who promote it...plain & simple.
        As to the message in which Dean Chambers speculates as to my motivations in leaving the Party after 20+ years......well, Mr. Chambers has a track record of being consistently wrong in his guesses about most issues, and he certainly doesn't dissappoint this time. But certainly, the cultural issues raised above were one factor of many.
       With best wishes,
       Mark Tuniewicz
[Note: former LNC Treasurer who resigned his position and the party in Spring 2000.  See Controversies page.]

       WASHINGTON -- Parallel to the international war against terrorism, a smaller "war" of interests, beliefs and realities is going on beneath the surface, which could endanger the final outcome of everything that has been accomplished since Sept. 11. So far, this parallel conflict is being contained by cool heads in the administration, but that could change at any time.
       Essentially, the discussion is over Baghdad: whether Iraq and its "state sponsorship" is really to blame for the terrorism that has struck America and whether we should not then go "straight to Baghdad." That simple exhortation is deeply misleading.
       The "Get Iraq" campaign, which to some people means finishing the Gulf War, started within days of the September bombings, long before the anthrax attacks and the new questions they raised. It emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and adviser Richard Perle, but also from hard-line neoconservatives, and some journalists and congressmen.
       Soon it became clear that many, although not all, were in the group that is commonly called in diplomatic and political circles the "Israeli-firsters," meaning that they would always put Israeli policy, or even their perception of it, above anything else.
       Barbara Slavin, the USA Today diplomatic correspondent, wrote in mid-October that "Pentagon officials, frustrated by the anti-terrorism campaign's focus on Afghanistan, have quietly gone around the intelligence establishment and asked a former CIA director to look for an Iraqi connection to the Sept. 11 attacks." The sources said that James Woolsey was sent to "seek evidence that would justify U.S. attacks on Iraq." She called it an "unorthodox role," which is surely a kind description.
       The campaign also has another target, which has now become obvious in the think tanks, in Congress and in daily meetings here. This bitter attack on both Egypt and Saudi Arabia seeks to discredit both, partly to discount the idea that the Palestinian conflict plays a core role in terrorism against America, and also partly to diminish, or ruin, the United States' relations with any Arab states.
       Usually the attacks take the form of criticizing Egypt and Saudi Arabia for not taking a more active role in supporting the United States. Much of the pro-Israeli part of the campaign is directed at proving that this fall's terrorism was instigated not by "Arab street hatred" over the war in Israel and Palestine, but by "unrepresentative" and "oppressive" Arab governments.
       The U.S. diplomats I have spoken to, most with long experience in the Middle East, are uniformly enraged by these campaigns. Next to the war, it is the main topic at receptions and meetings. "It's a very simple proposition," one former ambassador to the region told me. "Now's the chance for us to get rid of all of Israel's enemies in the Middle East." And another formerly high-ranking diplomat told me, "It's the old story, that Israel simply can't bear to see any Arab countries close to the United States."
       Friendly Arab delegations who have visited here, such as a delegation of high-level Egyptian businessmen who were here last week to express their sympathy, have been assured by the highest levels of the administration that there are no plans to attack Iraq. This has been the restrained and cautious policy of the president, the vice president, the secretary of state and the secretary of defense.
       The visitors also point out that, even as this campaign against them was gaining steam in Washington, 15,000 American troops were participating in exercise "Bright Star" in Egypt with Egyptian troops, the Egyptian government was openly supporting the United States, and overflight rights were immediately granted for U.S. planes.
       Leading Arab ambassadors have also warned privately that any attack on Iraq would sabotage Arab participation in the series of "coalitions" forming around the conflict. These other agendas, as they euphemistically call them, would drive the moderate Arabs away from the West. They point out, again privately, the fragility of this moment when the Arab masses are at best ambivalent about the anti-bin Laden campaign because of the war with the Palestinians.
       Meanwhile, Israel's hard-line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has refused even to temper his attacks against the Palestinians, despite President Bush's constant requests. Even many of his own coalition say that he wants to destroy the Palestinian Authority, to see the Palestinian radicals installed as the next "government," and then to work toward driving the Palestinians into Jordan.
       The Bush administration, concerned by the rising speculation about Iraqi involvement in the anthrax mailings, this week attempted to clarify the public rhetoric. There was still no proof of Iraqi involvement, spokesmen said. And when and if there is, the United States will revisit the question of Iraqi complicity.
       Meanwhile, it does not take a von Clausewitz or a Sun Tzu to figure out, militarily and also politically, that it would be the worst kind of madness to isolate America in this difficult, poisonous struggle. The idea of thrusting America into two wars at once and eviscerating the support it needs in the region is not some mischievous theoretical game. It is a deadly, real-life game, and its players should certainly know better.
       http://www.uexpress.com/georgieannegeyer/viewgg.cfmuc_fn=1&uc_full_date=20011026&uc_daction=P&uc_comic=gg
      COPYRIGHT 2001 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE Originally Published on October-25-2001