Local politician sees favorable outcome in court
By Ryan Gillespie | January 24, 2013
Libertarian political activist Franklin Perez sued the Libertarian Party of Florida, seeking reimbursement of his party assessment fee.
Perez was awarded $620 in small claims court. Perez paid the party assessment fee to the LPF in order to run for District 28′s state House of Representatives seat in 2012.
“It didn’t cover all of my expenses, but in a way, it was a political victory. The judge ruled that the party should have given me the party assessment fee,” Perez said.
The rest of the article can be found here.
Some history of the dispute can be found here .
14 responses so far ↓
1 Matt Cholko // Jan 27, 2013 at 10:00 pm
I don’t know all of the details of this matter, but it seems pretty crappy to me that the LPF kept the filing fee. Candidates sacrifice a lot to run for office as Libertarians, usually without any chance of winning. The least we can do is not take their money.
2 Be Rational // Jan 28, 2013 at 2:49 am
A few more details about the party assessment fee would be helpful: What is it? Who assesses it? When is it paid? Does the candidate pay this to the party and then the party gives the money back to the candidate?
There’s also a story about a massive fine being levied agains the LPF by the State of FL: $70,000 ?
What’s going on in FL LP?
3 Phil // Jan 28, 2013 at 7:28 am
In Florida when a candidate pays a filing fee to get on the ballot AND they are running as a member of a political party a portion of that filing fee is sent to the party of the candidate. You run republican they get a part of the filing fee, it’s kind of like a tax. The fee is collected by the supervisor or elections(SOE) I am a previous Libertarian Party of Florida(LPF) Executive Committee member and can attest that the money was ALWAYS returned to the candidate. In fact when I was on the board we found out that if the party chair wrote a letter to the SOE then we could stop receiving these checks from the SOE. The board unanimously voted to send the letter. Unfortunately our then chair resigned and the letter didn’t get written. Now we have a board filled with people who endorse republicans (chair Adrian Wyllie endorsed Connie Mack http://1787network.com/2012/10/adrian-wyllies-pinellas-election-guide/5482 when republican Mack was running against an NPA who wanted to end the drug war, support ending gay marriage bans, and cut spending (LPF bylaws prohibit endorsing candidates from other parties) and try to stop Libertarians from running from office. They don’t understand Libertarian principles, when I told them that since they are used the force of government to collect the fee they are in violation of their nonaggression pledge they laughed at me.
4 Executive Detractor // Jan 28, 2013 at 10:18 am
What is NPA?
5 Phillip Dodge // Jan 28, 2013 at 10:42 am
There is some good news for Florida. Political veteran Roger Stone may throw his hat into the ring for the gubernatorial nomination. Stone has the savior faire to draw national attention to the Florida race and put the Libertarian Party on the map. Let’s hope he runs.
6 Miro // Jan 28, 2013 at 10:52 am
t4
NPA stands for “No Party Affiliation”.
7 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 28, 2013 at 11:28 am
Does Roger Stone present good Libertarian principles?
8 Mike Kane // Jan 28, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Roger Stone is speaking at the LPF convention. He’s giving a seminar titled “How to Run a Winning Campaign!”
Adrian is also seeking the LPF nomination for governor.
As is at least one other person.
My question is, what’s more important in a gubernatorial candidate, a person getting a fraction more of votes by sacrificing Libertarian principles, or by having a ‘household name’; or a person selling the Libertarian Party’s principles and encouraging local involvement and activism, moving the ball slowly but strategically down the field? Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but I see a big difference between the two, and don’t think there will be incredible overlap should a certain person get the nomination.
As for the filing fee, It’s too bad it ever had to to go to court. A change in the bylaws would prevent LPF from keeping the filing fee of future candidates, and future lawsuits which only serve as a distraction.
9 Executive Detractor // Jan 28, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Kane writes: “My question is, what’s more important in a gubernatorial candidate, a person getting a fraction more of votes by sacrificing Libertarian principles,”
Detractor writes: My question is, what’s more important in a gubernatorial candidate, a person getting a fraction more of votes by promoting radical Libertarian principles, or a person selling the Libertarian Party’s principles and encouraging local involvement and activism, moving the ball slowly but strategically down the field? Not that the two are mutually exclusive.
10 Libertarian Party Needs Your Support // Jan 28, 2013 at 11:27 pm
@3 the ones who laughed at you are most likely Lino Rs who need to be sent back to the Rs where they belong! Certainly not allowed to be ranking officers in the 4th laregest state !
You do need to change the bylaws to stop this in the future. Positive pub, not just pub but positive publisity is whats needed. Growth at the local level and that includes candidates not being charged extra to help the LP.
Mr. Stone must have burned all bridges to the RP if he is this interested in the LP to actually put his name on a ballot. That my friends is yet to be seen !
I would definitely take notes at his speech. The LP can learn much from this guy. Yes too sleezy for some, but politics is a tough CONTACT sport and Stone knows what he is talking about. We should listen!
11 Shane // Jan 28, 2013 at 11:48 pm
Lol. Roger is considering a run? Not to knock him but when are Libertarians going to realize that when Stone runs LP candidates or runs himself, it’s part of a strategy to take votes away from Demoracts and provide a few buffer points for Republicans?
He ALWAYS supports left-leaning Libertarians with that intent. He’s a cunning man and has turned spoiling into a standard campaign strategy.
If LP leaders want to be used, at least look for a few benefits from each race he’s involved in — and find out who’s paying him.
12 LPF fails again // Jan 30, 2013 at 3:58 pm
Sadly this isn’t even the biggest waste of money or time the LPF has engaged in. $10,000 for a county fair booth, $5,000 for video production of the presidential debate they staged, failing to file paperwork correctly resulting in a $70,ooo fine
13 Lynn House // Jan 31, 2013 at 7:06 am
One factor that hasn’t been mentioned in the comments is that the LPF Bylaws say that the assessment fee would be returned to vetted candidates. Perez was not a vetted candidate.
14 Marc Montoni // Feb 1, 2013 at 9:36 am
Lynn are you saying that Perez was one of these candidates that self-anoint?
If so, I find that incredibly annoying.
Leave a Comment