Emailed to [email protected] and posted to IPR by Paulie
FEBRUARY 3, 2009 – With a vote of 5-0-1 today, the Boston Tea Party National Committee (BTPNC) has passed a resolution inviting all state and county party groups who are considering disaffiliation with their national party organizations to join the Boston Tea Party.
The idea was proposed after it was reported that the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts was considering disaffiliating from the Libertarian Party. Independent Political Report reported that the LPMA chair was even asked by the LP executive director to “please disaffiliate.”
“We have seen this year that many members and affiliates of other national parties are upset with the misbehavior of those running their national parties,” says BTPNC chair Douglass Gaking. “The Boston Tea Party is committed to moving policy strictly in the direction of liberty, while operating a totally transparent national party organization. We feel that this revolutionary approach to running a political party could be attractive to party groups who are not satisfied with their current affiliation.”
The text of the BTP resolution is as follows:
Whereas many state and county party affiliates and groups are considering dis-affiliating with a national party organization,
Be it resolved that the Boston Tea Party national committee extends an open invitation to any party group that wishes to affiliate with the Boston Tea Party.
The conditions on party affiliates are:
1. Adopt the platform of the Boston Tea Party.
2. For state party affiliates, to run the BTP’s presidential nominee, chosen in convention every fourth year, on the state affiliate’s ballot line, if any.
The Boston Tea Party was founded in 2006 with a platform that “supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose.” The party conducts business online at www.bostontea.us.
Out of curiosity Gene, when do you believe the LNC was formed?
I believe Tom may be making a technical point that distinguishes between the Libertarian Party as an entity and the Libertarian National Committee. Then again you could just ask Tom.
Tom Knapp says:
“At least one state LP (California’s) existed before there was an LNC.”
As a native Californian, I am curious where you get this information.
There was a huckster named Ed Butler who claimed to organize a Libertarian Party in California, but it was a figment of his imagination. He came to Denver in 1972, but did not actually become part of the Libertarian Party, and a California group affiliated with the Libertarian Party was formed by people who had attended the Denver convention.
Angela Keaton has a campaign with Michelle Shinghal for president and vice president, respectively. Since she’s resigned from the LNC, perhaps she’d be interested in the nomination, or endorsement, of the Boston Tea Party. She sure fills out a BTP shirt nicely.
Personally, I would rather like to see a principled libertarian like Tom Knapp win the nomination. I especially like the thought of how certain people will seethe with resentment at the thought.
Nevertheless, Angela and Miche promise to raise money for their campaign by stripping across Texas. If so, I am there like a Deadhead following a Grateful Dead tour.
And, no, I really don’t see myself going to a Tom Knapp strip show. If he raises money that way, fine.
HS,
I don’t consider it “undoubted” that I will be the BTP’s candidate in 2012. As a matter of fact, I have all kinds of doubts about that.
For one thing, if the LP nominates any candidate I consider acceptably libertarian, my intention is to withdraw from the BTP race and agitate for the BTP to endorse the LP’s slate rather than nominate its own.
With three years and change to go between now and the LP and BTP nominating conventions, it’s not safe to assume anything.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Part of the problem of discussing this whole thing is the nearly universal assumption on the part of partisan political Libertarians that “the Libertarian Party” consists of a national committee, an office at the Watergate, a biennial convention, and a quadrennial presidential campaign.
The LNC is nothing more or less than an umbrella organization through which (when fully affiliated) fifty state Libertarian Parties and a DCLP cooperate for various purposes.
If a Libertarian Party chooses to step out from under that umbrella and/or to step under another umbrella, it is not obvious that it thereby stops being a Libertarian Party.
Recognition by the LNC is not the criterion of what constitutes a Libertarian Party. At least one state LP (California’s) existed before there was an LNC. At least one other state LP (Arizona’s) continued to function as a Libertarian Party after the LNC withdrew its recognition of that LP as an affiliate.
For those who invoke the bylaws, well, the bylaws apply to the LNC and to its affiliates. Obviously a state LP which disaffiliated would not be bound by the bylaws of an organization with which it is no longer connected.
If the LP of [insert state] chose to, it could continue to be the LP of [insert state] with no national affiliation at all, or with any national affiliation it chose.
Regarding the resolution of the BTP’s national committee inviting disaffiliating LPs, etc. to affiliate with BTP, I didn’t abstain because I don’t support the idea. I abstained because I had not taken active part in discussion of the motion, and because I have personally concluded that it’s probably a better idea to wait until they disaffiliate on their own (if they do) to invite them than to possibly be seen as encouraging disaffiliation per se. I don’t think the motion encouraged disaffilition, but I do understand why some would see it that way.
There are at least three other BTP members I am aware of who intend to run for that nomination,
Have they declared?
HS, it is really not safe to assume that Tom Knapp will be the BTP nominee in 2012. That election is nearly four years away. There are at least three other BTP members I am aware of who intend to run for that nomination, and new candidates will probably arise as we get closer to the 2012 convention. Further, this isn’t the Tom Knapp Party. It’s the Boston Tea Party.
You are correct that we are working to give our 2012 presidential candidate the best possible chance of getting elected. A cross-nomination with the LP is something I personally would like to see. We have no idea who the 2012 nominee will be and it doesn’t really matter. We just want to put the party in a position to make an impact based on our platform at the national level.
It takes a lot of time and effort to start up a new state affiliate. I know because I started the Indiana affiliate and am still working hard to develop that into full functionality. We certainly can’t pass up an opportunity to affiliate organizations that are already established.
My recent comments on the Whig Party thread also sum up what I think about the Boston Tea Party. Facebook groups are wonderful (I’m certainly in more than enough of them), but at this point in the BTP’s history, perhaps they should be reporting on more meaningful party growth statistics.
As a radical group pressuring the LP, the BTP’s mere presence may have value to the cause of liberty, but as a political organization, I’ll believe the BTP is a legitimate national party when it runs a credible national campaign or even a significant statewide campaign.
For all the flaws of the LP, the Libertarians still have some name recognition, a small but solid membership base, and virtually nationwide ballot access. For any county or state party to forfeit these advantages in order to be ideologically “pure” seems to me both foolish and detrimental to any long-term growth in the liberty movement.
BTP News
bostontea.us
News
By: planetaryjim
New news at the top 4 February 2009 Our party is growing. So far 938 people have joined the party on this site, while 1,007 have joined our largest Facebook group.
Casual reports on the “tea party” indicate that dozens of members of Congress were inundated with bag and loose tea during our Bailout Tea Party.
We see that 47 coalition troops and about 1,226 Iraqi civilians have been killed since Obama was elected. People are still dying for change.
One of the new members of our Facebook group reports that discussion topics on another libertarian party’s Facebook group have been eliminated by dictate of the group’s admins. We appreciate the property interest that owners of a group have in choosing how to administer it, and we welcome the new members to our group.
Following up on news that a state affiliate of another libertarian party has been asked by the acting executive director of that party to dis-affiliate, the Boston Tea Party’s national committee has issued an open invitation to county and state party groups to join our party. The resolution specifies the conditions in our bylaws for applying groups to qualify (running our presidential nominee every four years and agreeing with our party’s platform). Groups interested in this proposal should contact Boston Tea Party chair Douglass Gaking.
HS
2. For state party affiliates, to run the BTP’s presidential nominee, chosen in convention every fourth year, on the state affiliate’s ballot line, if any.
This is the requirement for ANY State affiliate:
ARTICLE 7: AFFILIATE PARTIES
a) The National Committee may recognize, and accept affiliation with the Party of, new or previously existing state or local political parties. Such recognition shall be predicated upon the unanimous consent of the National Committee and upon adoption by the prospective affiliate of the Party’s platform and acceptance by the prospective affiliate of the obligation to run the Party’s presidential candidate, nominated in convention, as its own candidate for that office on its ballot line.
This motion isn’t an attempt to “convince” anyone to dis-affiliate with a national party and join the BTP, just an invitation to join should the former happen.
I am going by the assumption that Mr. Knapp will be the BTP nominee in 2012.
I would not make that assumption, especially so far ahead of time.
If any state LPs disaffiliate and join the BTP, they may still have their member lists, bank accounts, and any other resources they have, but I don’t think they would be called LP.
Just saw Knapp @ 15
Furthermore, the only state party that has, as far as I know, even really discussed disaffiliating is Mass., and due to their state laws, they would be better off not calling themselves Libertarian Party.
I meant this time, not back in 2000.
The conditions on party affiliates are:
2. For state party affiliates, to run the BTP’s presidential nominee, chosen in convention every fourth year, on the state affiliate’s ballot line, if any.
I am going by the assumption that Mr. Knapp will be the BTP nominee in 2012. So if a disaffiliated party joins the BTP as an affiliate, according to this rule/obligation, the BTP nominee would be obligated to run Mr. Knapp on the state ballot.
Make more sense?
Mr. Knapp will effectively by BTP rule/obligation always be their candidate for 2012 and will have a much easier time getting on the ballots.
What rule/obligation is that?
I think there may be some confusion here.
If any state LPs disaffiliate and join the BTP, they may still have their member lists, bank accounts, and any other resources they have, but I don’t think they would be called LP.
Furthermore, the only state party that has, as far as I know, even really discussed disaffiliating is Mass., and due to their state laws, they would be better off not calling themselves Libertarian Party.
Mass. LP got (just) over 3% for US Senate, which means that they don’t have to petition for the general election – but they do have to get a large number of signatures for their state mandated primary, even if there is only one candidate, and those signatures have to be collected in the winter, and can’t come from voters who are registered with other parties.
On the other hand, if the same people called themselves the Liberty Party, Boston Tea Party, or anything else other than the name of a state-recognized party, they would have an easier time getting on the ballot in real terms.
If I’m the one who’s confused, someone can correct me.
Robert,
If it backfires and they see through the political gamemanship, then the only thing that happens is that a disaffiliated state party will steer clear of joining the BTP. On the other hand, if a state affiliate doesn’t see the politics and joins up now in a “down year,” then Mr. Knapp will effectively by BTP rule/obligation always be their candidate for 2012 and will have a much easier time getting on the ballots.
That’s why I called it “shrewed,” because it is.
hmm, shrewd gamesmanship easily seen through often backfires. people resent being played.
sorry 🙂 lol
My observation wasn’t meant to be some kind of underhanded jab. Libertariangirl is correct. I was remarking about how I am genuinely impressed with the tactic.
“I think he meant shrewd in a good way actually ”
I’m a girl too 🙂
I think he meant shrewd in a good way actually , meaning it was a smart move i.e why it is followed by the statement , IMPRESSIVE POLITICAL GAMEMENSHIP.
@HS – Mr. Knapp had nothing to do with the proposal and even abstained in the official vote. I’m appalled at your accusations of “shrewdness” on the part of Thomas Knapp and/or any member of the BTP.
Reason for this thought is because the BTP requires those state affiliates that join the BTP to run the BTP candidate, which undoubtedly will be Mr. Knapp.
This is actually quite shrewed politics on the part of the BTP. If they convince LP affiliates to disaffiliate, then Mr. Knapp of the BTP will have a built in system in more states to push for ballot access and support for his presidential campaign bid with both BTP and LP.
Impressive political gamemanship!
State election laws generally have nothing to do with national affiliation. National affiliation often does impact how state affiliates comply with state election laws, though.
Just because Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania presidential primary does not mean the state D Party has to put her as the nominee on the November ballot, although under state law they could have.
It seems the only significant advantage offered by the BTP over the LP is that the state affiliate (or local affiliates) could endorse candidates not running with the Party in elections.
Although I know nothing of the laws of your country, I do know in the UK, our “brand” is considered a “trade name” and thus no affiliate may use it without our specific approval. As I mentioned prior, my own beloved Locklands group up here in Scotland keeps threatening to leave our mother group. If they did, they would no longer be allowed to use the “Libertarian Party” name for their affiliate. I believe that is one of the reasons they remain associated.
Quick research shows that your own national party holds the US Trade Name. Therefor, I would imagine if one affiliate separates, then your national party might have a legal cause to force them not to use the name.
Word Mark LIBERTARIAN PARTY
Serial Number 75937476
Then again, as others mentioned, why would one that disaffiliates want to you a name they so despise?
Good day,
Geoffrey
Tom , I understand that . I believe if a State Party wished to de-affiliate they could , but to de-affilliate and then join another party and decide to keep your LP name is ludicrous to me . If someone is that dissatisfied then de-affiliate but if you want to join another party then quit the LP and join the other Party .
Political parties are organized (and their names recognized) at the state level, not the national level.
According to the state, that is. According to the bylaws of the LP (as I understand them), things seem quite different.
Why should the *state’s* view of how the LP should be organized be binding on how *Libertarians* view their Party?
George, I think your idea of not having the messenger, in this case Dan Karlan, shot for delivering messages to the national insider group that runs the LP is a very generous one.
I would like to note that you should not extend this generosity universally. Consider the opportunity of sending Stewart Flood as a messenger, or Shane Cory.
libertariangirl,
Political parties are organized (and their names recognized) at the state level, not the national level. A state Libertarian Party organization could, if it chose, disaffiliate from the LNC and either affiliate with some other national umbrella or go it alone.
If a state LP decided to disaffiliate and/or re-affiliate while retaining its name (“Libertarian Party of [State]”), the LNC might attempt to press its ridiculous trademark claim on the name “Libertarian Party,” but I’d be surprised if it got anything out of such frivolous litigiousness except being more broke than it is already.
There’s actually some precedent on this:
In 1948, several state Democratic parties dis-affiliated from the national Democratic umbrella (I don’t remember if the DNC had been formally founded yet or if it was some other organization), reaffiliated with the Dixiecrats (“States Rights Democratic Party”) and ran Strom Thurmond on the Democratic ballot line. I seem to recall that one state did refuse them that line, while three or four others held that national affiliation was irrelevant to a state party’s ownership of its name.
On the LP side, the LNC disaffiliated the Arizona LP in favor of a new affiliate organization in late 1999, but was unable to wrest the 2000 LP ballot line from the old organization in court. The AZLP didn’t reaffiliate with another national party, but it did run its own presidential slate on the grounds that not having been represented at the national convention they were not bound by that convention’s decisions.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I am not a member of any political party and do not intend on joining one any time soon. However I will say that the BTP has a great platform!
I don’t believe that a national party has any official status in the eyes of a state.
Not true . nevada makes anybody thats want to be a delegate to county or state conventions in nevada be a dues paying member of National first
I must be confused , are people actually suggesting that affiliates retain their LP name in some fashion and then join the BTP?
If your not happy with the LP to the point you want to join another party , then quit the LP and join the BTP . switch your registration and then start a BTP affiliate .
Leave the LP affiliate to those who still feel we can pursue the goal of liberty AND wrk with-in the Party
I would like to reiterate that this is an invitation as worded in the resolution, not a request as worded in some of the comments here.
What’s the difference?
I hope they do it.
“So where did the idea for LP State Affiliates to leave the LP and affiliate with the BTP come from? ”
I am the one that offered this motion. I am in no way associated with the LRC. As stated by Paulie, the idea came about due to the mention that the Massachusetts LP may disaffiliate with the National LP.
There is currently an open invitation for the Florida BTP to re-affiliate; in a similar way, this is an open invitation for any State and/or county/municipal Party to affiliate with the BTP should they
1. Adopt the platform of the Boston Tea Party.
2. For state party affiliates, to run the BTP’s presidential nominee, chosen in convention every fourth year, on the state affiliate’s ballot line, if any.
I would like to reiterate that this is an invitation as worded in the resolution, not a request as worded in some of the comments here.
I don’t believe that a national party has any official status in the eyes of a state. Therefore, a state party after disaffiliation would retain the right to use the LP name if it so chose. Besides, the national LP itself created a precedent for state LPs not affiliated with the national party during the Arizona schism. Competing state chapters, the Arizona Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Arizona, one recognized by the state, the other by the national LP, were then BOTH declared disaffiliated by the national LP. If the national LP didn’t challenge the right of TWO state parties to the LP name, it certainly couldn’t under the circumstances described in this article. (The expression of my opinion here shouldn’t be taken as a recommendation of such a course of action.)
Didn’t the Florida BTP disaffiliate from the BTP?
Yes.
Does this mean they go into the LP?
The LP did not extend a similar offer, there is already a Florida LP, and many BTP members there are already members of it.
You could ask the Florida BTP to become a Whig affiliate, I suppose.
Holden, if a SP affiliate adopted a platform that “supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope and power of government at any level, for any purpose,” what would be the problem?
The request for other state parties to disaffiliate from their current national org. and affiliate with the BTP is conditional on them adopting this platform, which can’t be changed per BTP bylaws. So, realistically, this offer is to state LPs, not state Socialist parties.
If Ron Paul Republicans took over a state GOP, I suppose it could theoretically apply to them, at least if they were willing to not push for additional government restrictions at any level on e.g., (im)migrants, abortion, GQBLT people, etc.
If a state Green Party adopted this view of approaching the Ten Key Values of the Greens rather than the current GP platform, it could apply to them.
I suppose if a state-level Socialist Party were to push for voluntary socialism and against state socialism, it could theoretically be a BTP affiliate. But not so long as it pushes state socialism.
Didn’t the Florida BTP disaffiliate from the BTP? Does this mean they go into the LP?
If a LP State affiliate drops it’s affiliation then they no longer represent the LP in that state. Per the bylaws they cannot keep the name Libertarian Party.
That would be a matter of some dispute – who would be the primary owner of the name Libertarian Party in such a case.
But if I understand the BTP proposal correctly, what they are saying is that LP state affiliates should disaffiliate with the LP and re-affiliate with the BTP. The LP would then presumably create new affiliates in those same states, if this happens in any state(s), and the former LP (now BTP) affiliates would call themselves BTP, not LP.
So, if the Socialist Party wishes to affiliate with the Boston Tea Party, does that not completely contradict the idea that the BTP is a rebuke of the LP affiliating with “unpure” individuals?
So where did the idea for LP State Affiliates to leave the LP and affiliate with the BTP come from?
Was it from within the Libertarian Reform Caucus?
If a LP State affiliate drops it’s affiliation then they no longer represent the LP in that state. Per the bylaws they cannot keep the name Libertarian Party.
With no LP affiliate LP National office is free to start a new affiliate staffed entirely with LRC supporters.
Neat idea, they do not have to chase the anarchists out of they can get them to throw themselves out.
Rumors that Massachusetts is considering disaffiliating appear to have grown in the telling. Our state committee did meet this week. LNC member Dan Karlan drove up to visit and sit through our meeting. I am not sure what he got out of it. He did offer to carry our messages back to the LNC, if we had any. We expressed a preference to sending our communications directly. There’s no sense in risking having a messenger shot, and there seems to be no particular reason for us not to communicate directly with the LNC.
He did discuss his proposal for a replacement for Angela Keaton on the LNC, namely Emily Salvette. For reasons including some previously reported here, this seems to be a rather bad choice. He more-or-less denied that the LNC had given material support to the Paul campaign last year.
We did agree that we will mail our recent resolutions on various national issues to all state chairs.