I
am concerned that the December 31 Memo from
Speaker Howell on behalf of the House Republican
Leadership raises some serious and perhaps
unanticipated questions of propriety, appearance,
notice and fairness that may involve momentous
consequences.
1.
The
“price” for leadership posts and Committee
Chairmen positions of $40,000 and $30,000 per
election cycle amounts to an effort by some
elements within a purely private organization to
levy a mandatory assessment for holding an office
of public trust.
Omitted from the memo is mention of any
“penalty” for failure to comply with the levy.
Does this mean there is no penalty, or do
the authors simply decline to specify the penalty
or penalties but leave members to imagine any
penalty for non-compliance?
2.
The memo initially recognizes that some
members are better positioned to raise money, by
virtue of “their seniority, committee
assignments, districts,” but then applies the
same mandatory campaign assessments based on
seniority and status to all members and assumes
all have equal ability to raise donations for
themselves and others.
Election
costs vary widely across
Virginia
. Some
“good government committees” simply have no
constituencies which donate money.
No one has ever received a dime from Common
Cause, the League of Women Voters or the Virginia
Municipal League—the major organizational
constituencies for the Privileges and Elections
Committee and the Counties, Cities and Towns
Committee. Other
committees have a few constituencies and some have
many.
3.
The “assessments” are derived from a
formula based on status and seniority, and ignore
completely whether the donor has close election
results, well-financed opponents, or has a primary
or general election challenger.
4.
The assessments may actually diminish the
ability of some members to raise funds because
donors will know that the first $2,500 to $20,000
will go to the “House,” and not the candidate
to whom a donation is made.
Delegates with a high percentage of small
donors are especially adversely impacted.
Some donors will be reluctant to contribute
because their money may be passed on to someone
who doesn’t care about or even opposes their
main issue of concern.
5.
Money is important, but may not be the most
important contribution a member can give to
his/her colleagues.
No such assessments were necessary for
Republicans to produce the majority we now have.
6.
While the topic of member contributions was
briefly mentioned at the last Caucus meeting, no
motion was made or approved to authorize the
Caucus leadership to make such decisions for the
rest of us without our knowledge or consent.
(Magna Carta had something to say about
such policies.)
The assessment is said to be effective
January 1, 2004
even though no vote was taken to discuss, debate
or approve the conclusions of the policy.
7.
Because 25% of a member’s assessment must
go to the Speaker’s PAC, and 75% of a member’s
donations only to a pre-selected list of
candidates identified by the caucus leadership, a
caucus member cannot choose even a single
candidate who will get his donation.
8.
Democrats will point to Republicans as the party
of “big money.” They will use an “underdog
theme” to beat “rich” Republicans.
In
short, I conclude that this mandatory assessment
policy will not produce its stated goal.
I believe that a policy change of such
magnitude should be openly debated in a spirit of
collegiality at an upcoming Caucus meeting.
I
would appreciate your thoughts on this.
Please
inform me by e-mail, or phone at 703-361-5416, or
703-400-4125.
Thank you.
Bo
b Marshall
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
From:
Bo
b Marshall
In
the event that a Chairman of any of the three
committees on which I serve is unable to serve as
Chairman, or declines to participate in the
Mandatory Campaign Assessment policy as outlined
in the December 31, 2003 Leadership memo which
assesses Chairmen a $30,000 campaign contribution,
I would be next in line to become Chairman.
I
therefore take this opportunity to advise the
Republican Leadership responsible for the
Mandatory Assessment memo that I will decline to
pay the $30,000 assessment, or participate in
other aspects of the Mandatory Assessment Program.
I
recognize the necessity for raising campaign
funds, and I do not impute ill motives to anyone.
However, in my judgment whatever else this
policy is in this and other aspects, paying for
chairmanships or even hinting at such corrupts the
legislative process.
And
for your part, I urge again that this policy be
rescinded.
Posted:
January 7, 2004
