Problem: We’ve encountered several examples in the last couple of years where members holding key positions in the Party have been members of other political parties and have even donated money to candidates competing with our nominees in the general election. People who hold positions of trust in our Party should be clearly committed to supporting only our Party.
Solution: Add a new Bylaw that prohibits such individuals from serving in a position of trust or responsibility.
Note: This language applies to the national Party, not affiliates. These provisions are not retroactive.
ARTICLE 6: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
No person affiliated with any other political party or providing support for its nominees shall serve as a Party employee, board member, or committee member, or hold any other position of trust or responsibility within the Party. This article does not apply to support of a fusion candidate nominated by the Party or an affiliate or to signing petitions.
Proviso: This amendment shall take effect upon the close of the convention at which it is adopted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Ah, is this the Barr Rule or the Keaton Rule?
What's "affiliated with" actually mean?
Wearing another Party's tank top (Keaton)?
What's "support for its nominees" actually mean?
Giving funds to their candidates through your PAC (Barr)?
How does that apply to an LP member running for office on another party ticket where we have a candidate (like Ron Paul, for obvious example?)
Seems the proposal is kind of knee-jerk and not well-thought-out.
Also, what's a committee member? A STATE central committee member, perhaps?
It was intended to be clear from the context: Party member, [Party] board member (LP Board == LNC), [Party] committee member (Bylaws, Platform, credentials, and Judicial, as well as committees created by the LNC, such as the Audit Committee and APRC)....
Would specifying "material" support clarify what is meant?
And regarding running (or not running) against Ron Paul for his Congressional seat: note that this proposal ONLY applies to the national Party.
If it only applies to the national Party, then it needs to say so explicitly. Because state affiliates are now considered part of the national Party under the 2008 amendment to Article 6, then it can be construed (and someone will!) that it applies tot the states as well, and by extention to the states' local affiliates.
The problem is that you haven't defined terms properly at all. The Bylaws need a separate Article to define these terms explicitly and properly, and nobody ever seems to want to do that.
Actually, your idea of having a TERMS article is a very intriguing and attractive one. I saw to the creation of such an article in the Policy Manual a few years ago, but adding it to the Bylaws takes much more effort.
Most contracts have a portion where the terms unique to that contract are defined (and abbreviations specified where useful). Doing this for the Bylaws and Rules is something I'm going to think about for the future. Thanks for the suggestion.
Post a Comment