Tag Archives: caucus system

Count My Vote’s Daryl Acumen: The face behind the mask and spam emails you have received

This article appeared in the Utah Standard News.  It’s worth reading before you go to the Utah caucus.  Please share.

Daryl Acumen: The Face Behind the Mask

More About Count My Vote v Keep My Voice – It’s gotten ugly.

The Count My Vote (CMV) initiative seeks to eliminate the caucus system altogether and go to a direct primary.  The grassroots conservatives have responded with their own counter initiative “Keep My Voice” – formally titled The Freedom of Association Initiative.

Acumen has illegally used email lists to spam the inboxes of 51 conservatives with these lies, mass emailing for Count My Vote attacking our character.  In my case, these jammed up my email account that I use to communicate official party business in preparation for the caucus to the extent I was not able to use it any more.

He falsely claims that we have broken the law and will go to jail over a bylaw change that was necessary to fulfill the recommendation of Judge Nuffer, who said the Party had a constitutional case if it defined membership.  The lawsuit is in the 10th Circuit Court and the establishment hoped to end it, until Bateman retired the debt.

There has been no public thanks from the current Party Chairman Rob Anderson.  He is solidly with Count My Vote and wants to end the caucus convention process.

Daryl Acumen, whose last name is actually Bradshaw, has spun this issue wildly out of control and is lying.  He posted and shared a video that was dramatically edited and distributed parts of it publicly when it was an executive session called by the chairman.

One such communication called long time respected conservatives “a-holes” (spelled out).  I sat in a meeting in which he exploded at the committee members, shouting uncontrollably.  I had barely had any communication with him when he attacked me and shouted at me in a private conversation.  We have noted that he has an unstable background and a personal vendetta.  Unlike conservative Republicans, he subscribes to identity politics, now falsely accusing me and others of racism.

He has sought to brand the stalwart, respected conservatives in the Party as “far right extremists” just as the establishment did when Ronald Reagan ran for President.

Who’s Who on the Utah GOP Establishment Ballot

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 Utah State Delegates will assemble and make decisions on multi-county state legislative races as well as to elect the Republican nominee for Governor, Treasurer, federal races and to elect by acclamation others unopposed.

Foremost on everyone’s mind is who will be the national delegates that will represent Utah in Cleveland at the national convention in July to nominate the candidate for President.

This campaign season has drawn attention to the problem of the “Establishment” and its influence in the selection process.  In an attempt to education national delegates and citizens who are wondering what happens and what they can do, Phyllis Schlafly wrote a book that vividly describes how King making works at these conventions.  In A Choice Not An Echo, she reviews the history of these back room deals.  It is MUST reading!

So does Utah have an establishment?  And what does it mean?  Great questions!  The Establishment has been around a long time.  Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said:

I join in your reprobation of our merchants, priests and lawyers for their adherence to England & monarchy in preference to their own country and it’s constitution. but merchants have no country. the mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains. in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes. with the lawyers it is a new thing. they have in the mother country been generally the firmest supporters of the free principles of their constitution. but there too they have changed. 

Some things never change.  Delegates have been asking me who the Establishment is in Utah.  I wrote a post in 2015 and identified them. They are the same group that has funded and has tried to destroy Utah’s caucus system.

The very discussion about the RNC rules and how the Romney team stipulated that you had to have eight states (in order to keep Ron Paul out), now those rules don’t fit their plans to bring in a third candidate, dark horse.

Now they are trying to say, “Well, that doesn’t mean you have to get those eight state prior to the convention, you just have to get it AT the convention?”

I don’t care WHO you support.  This is what the Establishment does.  This is a deception.  I have been in this party for a long time.  My mission has always been to expose who these elites are.  And so here it is:

[Disclaimer:  I know and have worked with a few of these people.  They each have value and are good people and have strengths I admire.  But we must put that aside when it comes to policy setting, votes that will be cast and legislative representation.]


These are the donors that have sought to destroy our republican form of government.  Please read this blog post because I list the names and how much they have donated.  You may be shocked.  Some of them are running for national delegate.  If you see any of these names DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM.  Included on this DNV (Do Not Vote) list are these names and their family members:

  • Rich MeKeown
  • Mike Leavitt
  • Kirk Jowers
  • LaVarr Webb
  • Orrin Hatch
  • Thomas Wright
  • Ann Wright Lampropoulos


DNV – Do not vote for the following candidates because they are receiving PAC donations from the CMV PAC through Mike Leavitt, Rich McKeown (Leavitt Group), Gail Miller.  Here is the screen shot:

CMV Candidates


CMV is concerned that Weiler’s challenger, Heather Gardner, will be elected because she has run an effective campaign to support the caucus.  Senator Weiler was censured in a State Central Committee for lying about the facts of the lawsuit in a series of Tweets.

Here are some screen shots of his distasteful Tweets to me, mocking me for raising funds for Marriage between a man and a woman as he helped LGBT constituents to undermine that institution.  It was not easy raising enough money to file the amicus briefs in the 4th, 10th Circuits and at the U.S. Supreme Court.

I also also discovered that he and Ken Ivory deliberately tried to stop the nullification of the ACA (ObamaCare) by watering it down to a Prohibition of Medicaid Expansion.  Then Senator Weiler tried to unsuccessfully undermine that substitute bill.

Weiler - Marriage 4

Weiler-Marriage 2

Weiler-Marriage 2


He was the sponsor of the CMV bill – SB 54, falsely called a “compromise.”  It was no compromise.  It was CMV.  See my post.


Senator Shiozawa is an example of a very kind man (a church leader) that got elected while no one was looking.  His score is worse than his Democratic colleagues.


Here is the list of State Senators that supported SB 54, which is the same as CMV and the original proposal that DC lobbyists (including Kirk Jowers) who have supported the Democratic National Committee and who set up and managed Stephen Colbert’s SuperPAC to mock Republican candidates

Here is the list of the State Representatives that supported SB 54.


This is your DNV (Do Not Vote) list for State Legislators that are accepting funds from the CMV elite (this is a SCREEN SHOT!)

CMV Candidates

Todd Weiler was censured during a recent State Central Committee for Tweeting false information about the lawsuit, which damaged the case.  He has a history on Twitter that has shown me he is not for Marriage between a man or a woman and is only a small portion of the abusive and mocking tweets he has sent out about me during a very difficult year of raising $100,000 to defend Marriage in the Courts.

Here is proof:


At approximately 4:55 PM on the filing deadline day for National Committeeman and woman, two establishment candidates filed. Those of us who are involved in the Party were told that the current Committeeman and woman, Bruce Hough and Enid Mickelson, were running again.  In fact, even Party leadership were told just recently that they were not stepping down.

Without announcement, they both decided not to run and suddenly Thomas Wright and Ann Marie Lampropoulos,  brother and sister (wife of Fred Lampropoulos of Merit Medical) stepped forward.

Because the Wrights (which would be a question of nepotism in the first place) are running unopposed, the party rules stipulate that they will be elected by acclamation.  Why is this of any concern?

If you review my previous post about the Establishment and CMV=SB 54, you will notice that Merit Medical (the Lampropoulos’ company) donated $25,000 to destroy the caucus and to oppose the party’s position on the law suit – that CMV and SB 54 are unconstitutional.

The Party is in the Court on this matter.  It is a serious issue of a First Amendment right to freely assemble and to define membership, rather than open it up to unaffiliated and render the caucus and convention a mere endorsement with little reason for any candidate to go through the process and be motivated to get to know us, the grassroots.

It is plausible to believe that there was coordination between the two candidates and the current Committeeman/woman.

I know from a previous poll I took of Republicans that Fred Lampropoulos, candidate Ann Marie’s husband, favors a fully OPEN PRIMARY.  I also know that Enid Mickelson favors the 80% threshold, which would render the convention purposeless.

The RNC is Establishment-controlled.  All the in-fighting going on over rules is a great concern.  Both Bruce and Enid supported the rule change that created a favorable situation for Mitt Romney to control the delegates.  Now, that same group is trying to manipulate the rule Romney wanted to keep the Ron Paul delegates out, by saying “Oh the candidate doesn’t need to carry 8 states into the convention.  They can do that DURING the convention.”  Seriously?  Then WHY do we need all these Primaries?  Why not just show up at the convention and influence the delegates there?

To have two people succeed these two new candidates that are the heirs apparent to the current Establishment Committeeman/woman that have actively worked, with their money and in the case of Thomas Wright, who fully supported SB 54, is objectionable.

Not only do the members of the RNC help raise money for the Party, they also set the rules for the national convention and they have a lot of power to manipulate those rules and who becomes the next president.

We don’t need any more games played at the RNC, which is Establishment-controlled.  

This matter will be handled in a follow-up State Central Committee meeting to resolve.

[Ultimately, this problem is happening because we have allowed people to be elected that have departed from the U.S. Constitution and have perverted it with some amendments that have altered its original intent, which is why I am running for Presidential Elector.  Read more about this topic in this post.]

Although the Establishment is gathered around Ted Cruz right now, remember where they started:  JEB BUSH.  Then MARCO RUBIO. Then KASICH.  They will pull out all stops to get their Establishment goal and their elitist pick.  That candidate profile does not respect the U.S. Constitution, states rights, and our borders.  It does not regard the moral issues as winning and seeks to silence them.  The Establishment, as in Thomas Jefferson’s words, has been selling out this nation to global interests for decades.  We must return to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.


I have consistently stated that ALL the candidates have Establishment consultants and figures seeded in their campaigns.  For this, I’ve been on everyone’s most-disliked list.  But I’m not here to be popular.  I’m here to tell the truth on my radio show The Liberty Lineup on AM 630 KTKK 10-Noon Mountain time daily and also online or by smart phone app k talk radio.

So when the Utah Official Cruz slate came out, there they were.  In fact, so alarming was it that two other slates emerged – a Leadership Slate and a Non-Establishment slate.  The first is the Cruz campaign team.  The second is not only members of the campaign team, but the grassroots that have worked hard to preserve the caucus and who also want to protect the platform – another role of a national delegate.

The Official Cruz slate Establishment include:

  • Spencer Stokes
  • Spencer Cox
  • Gary Herbert
  • Jeanette Herbert
  • Casey Voeks
  • David Clark
  • Wayne Niederhauser
  • Richard Snelgrove
  • Marco Diaz
  • Clair Ellis

It’s not a good idea to send people who will be “double-dipping” in their power.  National Delegates should be grassroots and not elected officials.  I will make ONE exception, and that is Mike Lee because, full disclosure, I do support Ted Cruz and without Mike’s endorsement, Ted would not be in the U.S. Senate.  I don’t agree with all their votes, but they are the best we have in DC.  So here are the elected officials that should step aside and allow grassroots to be elected as national delegates:

  • Family members of elected officials
  • Mia Love
  • Rob Bishop
  • Bill Lee

Here is the Non-Establishment slate.  I’m so honored to have been invited to join this great group of Americans!

Front - TrusTED flyer v 4Back - TrusTED flyer v 4Cherilyn for Natl Delegate flyer


Utah GOP Convention Proposals

Good morning Utah state delegates! Today’s convention should be a smooth one. With regard to the proposals, in general they have been vetting thoroughly by the State Central Committee. Your representatives there are working hard for our First Amendment right to assemble, select our nominees, define who our members can be and what we believe in.

There are only a handful that oppose this First Amendment right. Unfortunately enough of our representatives in the state legislature voted against this right to pass SB 54, which is falsely identified as a “compromise.” It is not. It is identical to the original legal brief that the DC lobbyist firm Caplin and Drysdale submitted two years ago, which ignited and launched the Count My Vote initiative.

Follow what the speakers say and vote for the proposals that will strengthen our law suit. Please support this law suit with your vote and your financial support.

Republicans Stand Firm in Support of Private Property Despite Media Distortion

On May 30, 2015, the Utah Republican State Central Committee met to be briefed in executive session by legal counsel.  It was a productive meeting and never have I seen a committee work together with such a unity of purpose.  All but a handful support the defense of the caucus to preserve the constitutional right of a private corporation to define itself, its membership, its platform and its nominees.

The Utah media, which stands to lose millions if the caucus remains in tact, has worked overtime to keep its mantra going:  “insiders” (that’s you and me, the grassroots) want to keep you from participating.  And…we “insiders” are in a Civil War.  Really?   What lies and hogwash.

On June 9, 2015, the Deseret News published an opinion that confirms how invested they are in the “buy my vote” campaign of the CMV DC lobbyists and the elite.  “War over Count My Vote needs to end.”  So we are in a war, they tell us.

Obviously a lawsuit isn’t the same as a Valentine card and a box of chocolates, but we are doing the business that needs to be done to define who we are.  Furthermore, Judge Nuffer told us what we must do:  we must ask the Court to defend our Constitutional right to decide who is qualified to be a member.

Now, if that’s a war, so be it.  We certainly did not start it.  And now we are working to do exactly what the Deseret News suggests:  to end it.  We are on the precise path to ending the war CMV brought to us.  I’m reminded of a famous quote, the origin of which is disputed, but the point remains amid the dispute.  Viet Nam protestors in the 1960s used it in a film title.  Some have wrongly attributed it to the Marxist turned disenchanted East German, Bertolt Brecht.  Others show that Carl Sandburg penned a version in his epic poem “The People, Yes” in 1936: “Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”

Brecht, Sandburg or whoever, here’s a version by an unknown poet which yields the most appropriate rendition for this moment in time.

“What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy’s cause.”

I compliment Republican Dana Dickson for soundly reprimanding the Deseret News for its continual misrepresentation of this “war” and the perpetuation of misinformation and fiction as fact.  He wrote:

“If it was any other organization in the entire state of Utah (besides the UTGOP) fighting for a critical aspect of its freedom to assemble (which is what is going on here) the Desnews editorial board would be front-and-center cheerleading for them. However, since the UTGOP enjoys a special “freedomless” place in the hearts of media moguls in Utah the public is told that the UTGOP is somehow controversial when it uses the legal system to defend itself.

“Look everyone, the point of continuing the lawsuit is to get the courts to overturn the SB-54 QPP code that has non-Republicans selecting Republican candidates in primaries. Other state political parties have won this battle. Is it “unfortunate” or unreasonable for the UTGOP to want the same thing? Of course not.

“Bad on the Desnews editorial board for deliberately misleading the public on this issue, for beating up the UTGOP as it defends its freedom to assemble and select its candidates, and for calling out UTGOP Chairman Evans as the guy driving this whole thing (recent surveys show the party is behind him). They know better.”

Shortly after I read that outrageous opinion editorial, I called the Deseret News and left a message that we’d like to meet with the opinion editor.  No response.  Not surprising.  How many times has the Deseret News done this and how many times more before we lose our trust in the information this paper publishes?



Utah’s Caucus Again Misrepresented in the News

I’m feeling more like a broken record as time goes on.  I want to say, “Just read the previous posts,” but I’d like to comment directly to statements made in today’s Deseret News article titled “Gov. Herbert stepping up pressure on GOP to settle ‘civil war.'”

Civil war?  My great grandfather fought in the real Civil War.  Governor, I know what that war was.  This is no civil war.  That’s hyperbole at its finest and a misrepresentation at best.

The author, Lisa Roche, also editorializes in her first sentence, rather than doing her journalistic duty and simply stating the facts and limiting all opinions to quotations within the article.  She identifies Herbert’s “civil war” as the candidate nomination compliance process that “limits the power of party delegates.”

That was an explosive choice of words.  Actually, the party’s concern is a constitutional matter:  does a private corporation have the right to freely assemble, to set its rules and determine qualifications of members and to define its statement of belief – its mission statement, if you will.  This should be a concern to all business owners.  How far should government meddle?

(You might ask Chuck Barber who received a letter of franchise termination from President Obama in 2009, and who found that his family business he had invested in and spent his life building was unilaterally stolen from him and given to a competitor down the street.)

The article stated that the governor “is calling for a leader who can bring the fractured party together.”

Fractured party?  The governor may not be aware, but in the largest counties (including some of the most liberal counties), the “COUNT/BUY MY VOTE” proposal has been soundly defeated by the delegates who understand the constitutional question at stake.

Calling the Utah GOP a “fractured” party is more of a fractured fairytale.  But the Count/Buy My Vote crowd owns the media here, so it was no surprise.

Consider this:  If you belong to a church, do you believe the legislature should be allowed to step in and tell your church how it selects its leaders, what its membership qualifications must be and what its tenets must be?

(Actually, the Courts are attempting to force that on legislatures in one sticky area these days – the definition of marriage, and the steep fines levied against family owned businesses that believe their religious liberty is being infringed if they are forced to provide wedding services for those whose wedding vows violate their religious beliefs.  But let’s not go there for now.)

The governor continued to perpetuate – no, to create – his own civil war (he is the defendant in this legal case, what more could we expect?) with us when he said, “…the chairman needs to work very diligently to unite the party.”

Where has this governor been lately?

This chairman, James Evans, is communicating with members of the party as best he can, in spite of the false press this paper continues to perpetuate.   The dissenters are very few.  The State Central Committee meeting coming up this Saturday is anticipated to be very supportive of the lawsuit and the proposals on the agenda.

The governor has fabricated this “civil war.”  The unpopular challenge made by elitists that don’t even engage in the party, but have for a long time controlled from the shadows with their big bucks, is uniting this party more than ever.  This challenge is actually strengthening the party.

Then the governor commented that he has not decided whether to endorse a candidate for party chairman.  This governor apparently believes that his endorsement will have any impact.  Governors do not own political parties in caucus states.  The people who are engaged do.  In states with open primaries and dual tracks allowing unaffiliated and anyone to petition onto the ballot in a party’s name and that are elected by plurality instead of majority, yes, the elites DO own the party.  That’s what the delegates that support the caucus are trying to preserve – the people’s voice – those that choose to be engaged in the process by attending their neighborhood meetings and being elected by those neighbors.

The governor needs to know that we do not feel any discord.  We are more united than ever.  Who is he getting his information from?  We know that answer.  From the elites that are funding his campaign.  He has entered the ranks of the politically corrupted, good as he is in his personal family life.  It happens all the time.

And that’s at the crux of what we are hoping to preserve in the lawsuit – an ability to stop corrupted politicians – the incumbents who become so after each subsequent term in office.

The Deseret News then states that SB 54 was a “compromise.”  No, it was not a compromise.  We have proof in writing and audio that the Count/Buy My Vote leaders were satisfied that they got exactly what they wanted in the first place with SB 54.

Senator Bob Bennett’s opinion editorial reiterates this inevitable outcome.  He was the catalyst for the Count/Buy My Vote challenge.  Invariably, I have learned as I’ve mingled with them, that they have one thing in common:  They despise Senator Mike Lee and carry enormous resentment against anyone that ran against him and helped defeat him.  This challenge is really nothing more than “sour grapes” from some Bennett diehards that have never gotten over it, even though their candidate clearly has.

The paper also misstated the purpose of the State Central Committee’s meeting on May 30 and its upcoming convention.  We are not there to decide whether we will agree to SB 54 or not.  We are there to chart a legal course to make sure we have Republican candidates on the 2016 ballot and that we WIN the lawsuit (that the judge has told us we will most likely win on constitutional grounds), by so doing.  Let it understood:  The delegates and State Central Committee members have shown in their recent county conventions that they DO NOT support Count/Buy My Vote or SB 54 by virtue of who they elected.  The party survey to which 4,500 have responded so far also show strong support for winning the lawsuit.

A rare exception is Davis County where several of the Count/Buy My Vote leaders live and network.  However, the chairman lost his election only by only three votes, with five votes in his favor that were “misplaced.”  It is a messy day led by a few disgruntled delegates that have since been caught obfuscating the truth.  The body of delegates overwhelmingly passed the resolution to continue to win the lawsuit, while Senator Todd Weiler’s resolution thanking himself and his colleagues for their support of SB 54 barely squeaked by (more of an uncomfortable vote there – many delegates find it difficult to call out an individual Republican official publicly).  More on that county soon…

The Governor’s main concern is that the party maintain its Good Ol’ Boy system so that he can get re-elected by this elitist friends that have rallied to corrupt his views on so many very un-Republican positions such as his support of socialized medicine and putting in place the three policies that will allow the ACA to succeed (ObamaCare), rather than working to defeat it.  Also is his support of progressive education and the national takeover through common core standards and testing.  A third contention is his support of amnesty, which has made Utah the fourth largest sanctuary state in the nation and costing us millions annually (hence the need for “expansion”).

The article got one thing right:  Governor Herbert considers  himself to be the party leader, but he really has no authority.  (Look up the definition of “titular”).  He is technically, in fact, the individual the party is suing because he signed the law that created this disagreement.

The humor of the day was his spokesman Marty Carpenter’s statement, “We want to make sure we have good, conservative Republicans elected.”

The purpose of my blog site is to expose what is conservative and what is not.  Check out these legislative score cards.  You may be surprised how not conservative the state of Utah is.  Reality check.  It begins with the governor’s office.

Additionally, the Deseret News continues to make the injunction loss a big issue.  Attorneys know that injunctions are often lost (they are typically a preliminary step to get the sense of the judge on key points before proceeding) and then the cases move forward and win.  Such is the case.  But this is understandable.  The Deseret News stands to gain from the open primaries.  They will experience a windfall with dozens more media buys from primary candidates flocking to the ballot line.  The paper’s support of Count/Buy My Vote is purely self-interest and its long-standing collaboration with Dan Jones opinion shaping surveys and LaVarr Webb’s media firm Exoro Group.

Kirk Jowers – the DC lobbyist that got the ball rolling through his firm that supports the Democratic National Committee and that created Stephen Colbert’s Super PAC to mock Republican candidates is not worth commenting on here.  You get the point with his mere credentials.

As for the GOP legislative members that voted for SB 54, the delegates have taken note and those that show mediocre to low score cards when held up to the party platform will be held accountable.  If anything good has come from this disagreement, it is that the delegates are now paying much more attention.

The constituents of Representative Dan McCay might want to especially consider a growing attitude problem with their representative.  At times he has been flippant (e.g. admitting the school system is a socialist system, and suggesting we make it more so with a bill that came under fire by conservatives). His most recent comment puts him in the “arrogant incumbent” category when he said that the delegates and party leaders were “engaged in childlike behavior.”

I replied, “You, Dan, are not my parent.”  I suggested that HE was the one that needed to be given a good spanking over his mother’s knee.

The rest of the news about who’s who to challenge Chairman James Evans is not worth discussing.  It’s simply a big YAWN on a slow news day.  The fodder the news tries to create by stirring up the pot that isn’t even boiling is bigger news.  Our concern is that in the middle of a lawsuit, we maintain consistently.  We don’t need to be debating on two fronts.  James Evans has done a good job of keeping us united.

Count/Buy My Vote’s Rich McKeown, made the comment of the century when he said they are “staying out of the race” (for party chairman) and that it will not be taking “any official position on the chairman’s race.”

It doesn’t need to, and that’s not how the elite establishment works.  As he said, they work behind the scenes.  Party leaders, delegates, coalitions and campaigns have never known any of them to show up, become involved and to engage with the unwashed masses.  They do their work by throwing their money around in the media to influence the readers with their distortions.

PS.  Here are some insightful comments posted on Facebook by Dana Dickson, an active supporter of the caucus:

The Deseret News stirs the pot a little with this article and here are my takeaways:

  • This is a notification to UTGOP State Central Committee members, ahead of this Saturday’s meeting, that they are to quit making a fuss and conform to CMV’s wishes.
  • Someone let Marty Carpenter know that “the party continue to produce strong results” and conforming to SB54 are mutually exclusive things since SB54 allows non-party voters to choose Republican candidates.
  • The Governor rightly acknowledges how difficult it has been for Chairman Evans to defend the Caucus/Convention system, as the delegates elected him to do, which is good. But he neglects to mention that Chairman Evans has had to do this while being undermined by the press, past party chairs, and legislators like Dan McCay.
  • The results of the recent UTGOP survey have provided critical guidance Governor Herbert, Chairman Evans, and the legislature all agree on.





The Bottom Line: What You Need to Know about-CMV/SB54 in Less Than 300 Words

Everything You Really Need to Know About the Caucus Challenge, But Were Afraid to Ask (because Cherilyn Eagar might write another 5,000 word article in response).  Here’s the CMV/SB54 Solution Made Simple

On Thursday, May 7, 2015, www.UtahPoliticoHub.com published an outrageously ridiculous rant refuting the Republican lawsuit defending the representative republican election system, written by a hyperventilating Holly on the Hill (Richardson) titled  “The James Evans SB 54 Survey: Purity Panels, Purging and Pay-to-Play.”  It raised a ruckus, but fortunately it’s much ado about nothing.

1. This legal challenge is about membership qualifications.  Does a private corporation have the right to define membership?

2. In the hearing I attended, Judge Nuffer said, “Yes.” That’s defined in the corporation’s constitution and bylaws.

3. The GOP constitution and bylaws have long established candidate rules for membership.  They must agree to support the platform.  Where they do not, they should disclose.

4.  The party can establish two kinds of memberships (as many corporations and private organizations do):  qualified voting members and affiliate members.  Affiliate members who run for office outside the caucus convention system would automatically be disqualified as Republican.  Unaffiliated candidates would not qualify for the Republican ballot in a primary.

5. A long-standing law is that anyone can petition onto the ballot in a general election.

6. There is no need for Holly’s hyperbolic “purity panels and purges.”  Any rational corporate leader would take these steps to qualify membership, unless the goal was to hand the corporation over to competitors.  Nuffer said we have that right.  Nuff said.    (Love that ‘literation…)

6.  The party must pursue the lawsuit to the finish line to clear up legally the discrepancy that SB54 put into state code.

That was, believe it or not, the less-than-300-word answer.  For those who would like more information on how to respond to the survey and the rebuttal to the Holly on the Hill post, go to this link.







Rebuttal to Holly on the Hill Blog Post: Purity Panels, Purging and Pay-to-Play

In response to a blog post that has blown the controversy over CMV/SB54 out of proportion, I am compelled to ask for reasoned minds to continue to thoughtfully deliberate.  This is the kind of discourse that the Utah Republican Party’s current leaders have been able to achieve over the past two years. That is now being disrupted by some who have not been engaged in the process, or who are simply not in alignment with the Republican Party, or who may simply be ill-informed.

I’m reminded of a Persian Proverb:
He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not is a fool – shun him.
He who knows not, and knows that he knows not is a child – teach him.
He who knows and knows not that he knows is asleep – wake him.
He who knows, and knows that he knows is wise – follow him.

I am the first to admit that I do not know everything about everything, an impossibility. But I do know much about a lot, and just enough to know that I need to keep seeking knowledge. When I blog, I realize the responsibility, and so it is my sincere desire to learn as much as I can and to avoid any misrepresentations. I always welcome your insights and when applicable, corrections.

These recent articles have taken hours, days, weeks to research. I hope they are useful. I am sometimes criticized for the length. Typically it’s necessary in order to go into the depth to make a case conclusively. At other times, it’s that I have only time for the rough draft which precludes making the entry shorter. I offer my apology in advance.

The Caucus Challenge: A National Progressive Assault on Conservative Ideals and Election Processes

First, the election challenge Utah faces is a national campaign to destroy the Republican Party and the conservative vote.  The label “purging” is routinely used by radical progressives conducting this shrewd campaign, deceiving even Republicans.  One of the foremost leftist organizations promoting this campaign to destroy the caucus election system is Project Vote.  Before we quickly jump on board with Holly’s parallel rhetoric, let’s check out who’s who on that board.  You can see for yourself.  Google the board member’s name and then “political contribution” or “democrat” or “republican donations.” You will find that this board is extremely progressive. It includes the famous Frances Fox Piven, married to now deceased Richard Cloward, both self-proclaimed Marxists and members of the Democratic Socialists of America party.

Holding Elected Officials Accountable and Maintaining a Conservative Republican Identity in a Progressive War
It was just a little over a year ago that the State Central Committee listened to attorney Christ Troupis (no, I did not misspell his first name) deliver a brilliant analysis of the CMV ultimatum constructed by the DC lobbyist firm that works for the Democratic National Committee. That 26-page legal brief was clear: either adopt a dual track election system or cease to exist.  It was presented as a legal threat, outlining how Utah’s caucus was “unconstitutional.” Troupis received a standing ovation.

Holly Richardson has not been involved in these discussions.  She is not a member of the State Central Committee.  She lost her legislative seat in the Utah State House of Representatives in part because of her overall lukewarm Republican positions (scorecard: 57%) and her progressive position supporting an amnesty bill that the Republican Party strongly opposed.  It had so many flaws, among them to allow illegal aliens to continue to commit social security and identity fraud unchecked.

Another faux pas was her (and Senator Hatch’s) attempt to block a State GOP resolution opposing the federal take-over of education, commonly called “common core state standards” and the invasive testing and tracking of personally identifiable information.  She and a handful of campaign staffers of Senator Hatch’s campaign united to give it an “unfavorable recommendation” to the convention floor. That was after the Republican National Committee had voted unanimously to oppose it. Fortunately, the delegates were wise and that resolution passed with the largest margin of support that day.

Another vociferous elected official vigorously supporting CMV/SB54, opposing the Party’s lawsuit and any membership requirements is State Senator Todd Weiler. His voting score cards are declining with every session he serves.  This year he ranked the second to lowest scoring Republican in the Senate at a dismal 35%.

My interpretation of Holly’s diatribe is that she either has an ax to grind, or she is is concerned that Republican elected officials just might need to be held accountable to a Republican standard, or both.  According to several score cards monitoring the votes, many of the members of the state legislature vote with the democrats nearly 50% of the time on matters that the Republican Party opposes, such as socialized medicine and the growing of ObamaCare in Utah.  In fact, Utah’s governor stood alone as a Republican governor among the states that agreed to expand Medicaid during the beginning stages of its implementation, knowing that it is essential if ObamaCare is to succeed.

Senator Brian Shiozawa, who I know and appreciate on a personal level, managed to rank the lowest Senator of all, Democrats included, with a whopping 17%!  (This is a strongly Republican survey developed by the Reagan Wing of the Party).  Shiozawa is an emergency room doctor and former President of the Utah Medical Association (the trade association that endorsed ObamaCare) who sponsored the Medicaid Expansion bill.  (Cottonwood Heights, are you paying attention?)

For these reasons, as members of the Republican Party, it is critical that we hold our elected officials accountable to the standard they signed when they registered as a candidate. We must be able to vet them ongoing when they present themselves to run for re-election.  Delegates must keep a watchful eye on these scorecards.

Who are we? What do we believe? Do we believe in limited government – or big government?  How is your representative voting?

I can honestly say that the State Central Committee and Executive Committee have never been more united in presenting creative ideas for improvement and then vetting them in a rational way.  Of course there are differences, and especially regarding how to communicate the message and when.  In spite of human error, at the end of the day we have agreed that the CMV/SB54 model which was forced on the Utah Republican Party as a private corporation, has damaged and weakened its imprimatur, brand and platform and will continue to do so unless delegates stand up and with an informed vote, elect people of integrity.

CMV/SB54 puts the Republican Party at risk of being irrelevant in the nominating process and becoming a meaningless platform.   It removes the party from being the accountability to our elected officials.  It is being promoted by those that want it so. The democrats would like nothing more than to see that destructive outcome.

The Legitimacy of Defining Membership Qualifications and Holding Representatives Accountable
Judge Nuffer gave us the route to remedy these concerns, and it is embodied in what Chairman James Evans and our committee are working through right now.   Holly’s, and Senator Weiler’s representations are shamefully misleading.

Those that take this discussion to media and grossly distort it, as Holly has done here, do so because they intend to do damage.  They do not support the caucus system, and they prefer Count My Vote’s-SB 54’s  dual track.  

Either they feel they’ve been burned by it (there are winners and losers in any election system – I too lost in this system, but I support it) or they do not understand the nature of a representative republic and the U.S. Constitution’s protection of freedom of private and public assembly.

Those elected (or former) officials that favor CMV/SB54, or that mock the phrase “RINO” (Republican In Name Only) do so because they do not want to be held accountable.  Their scorecards as conservatives are proof that they themselves are Republicans in name only.  These scores typically range from 38% to 68%.  When I went to school, a 68% was a D, next to failing.  The standard in our home growing up was 80% or higher.  Anything below that was the danger zone.

Explosive phrases such as “Beehive McCarthyism,” “GOP Politburo” do not come from Republicans.  Holly’s labels “Purity Panels,” “Purging” and “Pay-to-Play” are not simply hyperbole, they are a gross distortion. Methinks she doth protest too much.

The roots of these labels come from the the ideology of the Cloward and Pivens’ activists, at the top of the totem pole in this national assault. They are experts in name-calling, routinely using “racist,” “bigot” etc. When we suggest something so logical as to ask a voter for an ID, these progressives will jump in and attack it as a “racist poll tax.”

Frankly, they insult the intelligence of those who understand this strategy. This national progressive trend seeks to eradicate any advantage – or equal access for that matter – to candidates who espouse the principles of the free market, limited government and principled leadership.

Now let’s examine Holly’s blog post.  Her text is in italics.

The survey – more than a day late and a dollar short …

The preliminary injunction was held April 10.  The Party works in an orderly fashion.  Executive Committee had to schedule its meeting.  We counsel with each other in as timely a fashion as possible.  A special session is set for May 30.

As one who has contributed a sizable amount of money to assist the legal case, how much have these critics contributed to our party’s lawsuit?  They would rather end the funding and quit now.   When you hear, “the Party should stop funding law suits and start funding candidates,” that should be a concern.  Many devoted people have stepped up to the plate to preserve our representative republic.  To stop now would be disrespectful of that sacrifice.

Outside counsel is advising us that in his state’s similar case, the injunction was also lost, but they stayed the course and they won.

Qualified Political Party or Registered Political Party?

The short answer is: Qualified, if you care about preserving the integrity of the Republican Party Platform and holding candidates accountable. The Party just needs to communicate better about which candidates are voting Republican and which are not.  

The first question asks if the party should chose QPP or RPP or not sure. The Chairman didn’t ask about the 3rd option: do nothing. It is a legitimate option and the longer the party delays in making a decision, the more likely that option becomes. You can read more about QPP and RPP here…

Holly then provides biased links of blog posts by those that support CMV-SB54 and by so doing, wish to weaken the platform and avoid accountability.

The Party isn’t delaying.  The lawsuit is in the Court system and is subject to its time line.

Should the Lawsuit Continue?

Short Answer: Absolutely.  We are on the winning side of this issue.  It’s the CMV/SB54 advocates that want an open primary that want us to stop.

The 2nd question is about the legal challenge. The party states that they were not party to the SB 54 compromise. They do neglect to mention that they were on the Hill during SB 54 negotiations and that the chair was asked to participate but he declined. They do note that the case is not scheduled to be heard until Jan 2016, but that the “prudent course” is to get legal clarification. Back to the question: should the lawsuit continue?

Again, Holly and other opponents of the constitutional caucus system would like the lawsuit to end before it has begun.

The lawsuit is not between the Party Chairman and the Governor.  It’s between the Republican Party and the Governor.  Her comment makes no sense.  Because the Party Chairman was on the Hill to observe and to decline participation in the negotiations does not mean the Party was “party to the compromise.”  Legal counsel advised the Chairman not to negotiate with SB54, because it would compromise the legal case.  That is an ethical attorney-client matter.  The Chairman did the right thing to leave SB54 as is.

As a member of elected representatives on the State Central Committee, we deliberated for over a year, working hard to make improvements and find solutions.  One of the greatest obstacles is ignorance about the role of government and what a constitutional republican form of government is, guaranteed in Article IV to every state.   As Judge Nuffer said, this is a constitutional issue, and so we are focused on preserving that constitutional right.  He charted the course for us to define membership qualifications.

Questions 3-5 are about party membership.

Question 3: Should candidates be prohibited from being officers in another party?

Short (and only) answer: YES! This is a no-brainer.  

Question 4 states that for many years the GOP has required a disclosure document and now wants to know if the party should require a disclosure document and subsequently remove party membership from those who refuse to sign.

Short answer:  Use logic.  Businesses do this when an employee violates nondisclosure or noncompete.

Question 5 states that at least one county party has an interview process already, then asks if the GOP should require that process for all candidates. The county in question seems to be Utah county where a previous chair would ask candidates if they had what they needed and if they understood the process. Even that mild visit (not an “interview”) is no more and hasn’t been for a number of years.

Short answer:  Leave it blank.  This is probably a county decision anyway.  The quick and easy solution is simply to require that disclosure statement on the platform and then to monitor the candidate’s voting record.  In my view, if an elected representative is not voting at least 75-80% with the values of the party he or she represents, that should be made known and some sort of censure from the Party. Otherwise a platform is toothless.    

As a former candidate, Holly should know that the Republican Party has had a long-standing candidate disclosure policy.  In another context, a private corporation or organization has every right interview and to ask for disclosure to that corporation’s leadership.  Noncompete and non-disclosure clauses and even prohibitions on moonlighting are drafted and signed without batting an eyelash to protect the corporation from conflict of interest – the highest form of corporate membership qualification.  The baseline question being, “Do you pledge to be loyal to this corporation, its goals, interests and belief systems?”  If so, you are hired.  If not, you are fired.

The dominant religion in Utah – the LDS Church – has a set of 13 “Articles of Faith” and a brief line of questioning that must be answered in the affirmative before a prospective member is baptized.  This is such standard procedure, it’s troubling that a disclosure of some kind for a political platform would even be in question.

In context of the Party, the intent is to qualify candidates as REPUBLICANS who support the Republican Platform, especially in a dual track system that results in little accountability and the irrelevance of a platform.  If a Republican candidate does not agree with parts of the platform, then as a delegate I want to know that and I want to know which planks that candidate opposes.

It would be a reasonable standard if a candidate supports at least 80% of the platform.  But it is our right as delegates and voters to know.  This has become an issue because those of us that are at the legislature are astonished at how many Republicans vote for democratic ideals during the session.  If a candidate refuses to sign on to the party platform or to disclosure points of disagreement, is that not a private organization’s right to remove that person from running for office or to refuse membership?  Every legitimate corporate constitution routinely includes this sort of clause.  Roberts Rules of Order also recommends it.  If a candidate doesn’t agree with the party platform or the majority of it, should they not find another party with which they do agree?

Questions 6-11 ask which candidates are pure enough to receive party support: email lists, data and volunteers. Although most candidates and current elected officials have stopped relying on the party for support and know they have to get their own volunteers and hire their own data peeps (or do it themselves).  Also – should the party endorse candidates pre-primary and if so, who?

Short answer: Only those that are participating in the party caucus-convention should have access to party assets and its endorsement.

“Pure enough,” again, is a distortion of a legitimate principle.  Why should a candidate that chooses to go outside the caucus-convention to avoid the delegates’ scrutiny, instead opting to petition onto the ballot as a candidate not endorsed by the delegates receive their help?

In another context, some people criticize organized religion, ignoring the advantage of the networking and the value of a group of people that can, from time to time, come together to help each other, especially in crisis.

The party provides those essential events and networking opportunities from which candidates can readily pick up supporters and volunteers for their campaigns.  Party volunteers enlist their time to enter the data for the candidates.  This is a no-brainer:  the candidates that work through the party should have exclusive access to the resources the party provides.

Part of the problem the party currently has is that people have been more willing to give to an individual candidate than the party for precisely the reason it is seeking to define membership:  not all Republican candidates are created equal.  In states with an overwhelmingly dominant party, such as Utah, candidates from the minority party are known to run under the banner of the prevailing party.  This accounts for the more progressive legislature.  We need to find ways of going about better due diligence.

Most private associations have an annual dues requirement.  There are 5,000 state delegates.  In Salt Lake County a little over 2,300 county delegates.  What if … now don’t hyperventilate … what if each delegate, as a requirement to run for that office, pitched in $5 annually.  That would be $25,000 at the state level per year.  In Salt Lake County, that would be $11.500!  Carried further:  What if, in order to be a member of the Republican Party, there were an annual membership dues of $5.00 in order to stay on the rolls and to vote in a Republican Primary?

Question 12 and 13 ask if the threshold for getting on the ballot should be lowered for getting on the primary ballot, to as low as 20%, thus ensuring multiple primary candidates. This proposal is a new one and I suspect will generate a good amount of grumbling discussion.

Short answer:  If you think this nation was built on majority rule, then forget the 20% threshold.  If you want plurality elections, 20% will achieve that goal.

After we received the Caplin and Drysdale legal brief describing CMV’s goal – a dual track – LaVarr Webb explained that there were some CMV supporters that wanted the 20% for reasons Holly stated.  This is not a new proposal.  All options have been discussed thoroughly.  The question is: does our form of government support election by majority or by plurality?  Which approach results in the most civil, peaceful outcome?  Hands down, majority has always been the standard, and it is the correct constitutional principle.  Anything else eventually becomes anarchy, which we can see in so many other nations.

Question 14 asks whether the legislature should pass new legislation to address the plurality issue, where candidates could get on the ballot without a majority (not a Constitutional issue – multiple other states have people who have won via plurality).  Of course, the chair could have thought to ask that before the 2015 session, but that would have made sense….

First, simply because a Court has ruled that plurality is constitutional does not necessarily make it so.

Short Answer:  I’m not sure I trust the legislature to make a wise decision on this given its support of CMV/SB54 in the first place.  But plurality vote is a danger to the rule by majority.  Plus, it makes mending the fences difficult when the winner of the Primary got only 34% of the vote – how are you going to pull the majority together to support your candidate in the general election?  It does create havoc.

The author must be unaware that this very question has been at the core of our committee’s concern and it has been discussed thoroughly.  Many of us would have liked to  have address issues much sooner and to have filed the lawsuit sooner.  With CMV/SB54 in place, the lawsuit has a targeted “opponent” in writing – in the law  That concern is more one of communication, and as a member of the committee,  I have been discussing using technology to engage the delegates more.  Being the party chairman takes an enormous amount of time and it often a thankless position.  By working together we have been able to cross many roadblocks. Sideline quarterbacking does not help.  If you have a concern, get involved.  Be part of the solution.

Question 15 asks if the party should open its primaries to unaffiliated voters.

Short answer:  NO!!!  Not unless you want the Republican Party to be a conglomeration of political philosophy that renders a platform meaningless.  And not unless you want to allow an opposing party to strategically intervene to skew the results of your party’s election to their benefit, by calculating the demise of the candidate most likely to defeat their candidate.

The Truth About CMV as the Solution to the Unaffiliated

CMV/SB54 does allow the unaffiliated to vote in a Republican Primary, as well as same-day registrations.

Let’s use the Connecticut example, since that is the example that Caplin and Drysdale used as its model in its original legal brief threatening the Party.  Right now, Utah has 588,063 active Republican voters, 112,414 Democrats, and 508,642 unaffiliated.  Connecticut has 430,564 active Republicans, 815,713 Democrats,  and a massive 872,839 unaffiliated!

Wait.  Connecticut is the model for Utah.  Given the CMV/SB54 rhetoric, you will find this article more than slightly humorous.  Former Governor Lowell Weicker, who bolted from the GOP and became governor is now suggesting that the growing unaffiliated must now be allowed to enter the Republican primary so that they can grow their numbers.  In Utah, the Democrats already do that.  The rhetoric is almost identical to what we are hearing from CMV/SB54 in Utah.

I also learned that after only three years of enactment, Connecticut (as well as other states) has had a spike in fraud for the same-day registration law it passed in 2012 that the Democratic Party championed and cheered.  What irony.  In Utah, it’s the Republican Party cheering this “innovative” change (while the Democrats sit back and chuckle with delight.)

Utah Data Points, run by a BYU political science professor, is simply on another planet suggesting that CMV/SB54 will remedy any of the “low voter turnout” concerns.  Rather than trying to change the system itself,Colorado increased its voter turnout in 2012 by advertising how to register and the election on radio, TV and in other news outlets.  What a concept.

Further examination and comparison of CMV/SB54 and Connecticut:  In Connecticut,  for those already registered in a political party, the state requires a 3-month (90-day) change of party affiliation prior to Primary Election Day.  In Utah, CMV/SB54 = 30 days.

Connecticut requires Republican candidates to gather signatures 5% of Republicans that voted in the last election to qualify for the Primary ballot.

The Connecticut Office of the Secretary of the State told me recently that in a given municipal election, 20 towns of 169, may yield approximately 40 candidates that PETITION onto the Primary ballot.  The number of signatures a candidate must gather to petition onto the ballot is 5% of 430,564 =  21,528.  A primary petition provides 20 signatures per page.  That means that each candidate will be delivering a minimum of 1,076 pages, but probably at least 30% more to cover any invalidated signatures. Each signature must be verified against the registration rolls.  I have watched this process.  It is time-consuming and costly.

In Utah, CMV/SB54 stipulates only 2% = 11,761 signatures, 589 petition pages per candidate.

Senator Bramble’s bill SB54 shows a fiscal note that says, “undetermined.”  Just how much will this undetermined amount cost each county?

Question 16 asks if the Republican party should “charge its candidate a fee” to “defray costs”. Sigh. And here I thought pay-to-play was illegal….

Short Response:  Leave it blank.  The state requires a filing fee and has for as long as I can remember.  Is that also “illegal?”  Again, do private organizations commit an illegal act by requiring membership dues and annual fees?  

This needs further review.  If CMV/SB54 is creating further financial burden on the party, then what are the options for meeting those obligations?

Question 17 asks about stripping party membership from impure Republicans who gather signatures through the petition route only.

Welkomen to the big tent. Don’t let the Politburo phase you. I hear the Gulag is nice this time of year.

Again. Take the survey. Just click here.

Short answer:  What irony that the very political operatives manning this campaign from the top are the very progressive minds that would have felt quite welcome in the Third Reich or the Soviet Union to which Holly insultingly compares this controversy.  Perhaps she really is one of them and she just doesn’t know it.

“He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not is a fool – shun him.”

Let us all work together to find the best solutions to make the caucus better than ever.  The solutions are simple.  Go here to get that check list.


A Defining Moment for the GOP: The CMV Saga

A Defining Moment for the Utah Republican Party
Will It Be Big Government, Big Business, Big Money or We the People?

What a Government-Sponsored Hostile Takeover and CMV/SB54 Share in Common

In 2009, President Obama sent a letter to auto dealer and franchise owner Chuck Barber. The letter informed him that he no longer owned that private, family-owned corporation – a franchise. With the stroke of the pen by executive order, the President unilaterally confiscated Chuck’s private property. It was more than a hostile takeover.

Barber and six of his auto biz colleagues that had met the same shocking fate stood at a press conference at the Utah State Capitol to tearfully declare that a nation that could steal private property is a “communist” country.

Few people even remember this happened. But I was there. And I do remember.

There was little press coverage. Not a single TV camera showed up. (They were outside covering a union story for the most powerful Democratic union machine in Utah – the Utah Education Association.)

After a lifetime of growing and investing in this family business, and even contributing to GM directly to help stabilize it, Chuck’s company was stolen and given to competitors down the street that had never been affiliated with that franchise or corporation.

This is the model we call “CMV/SB54.”  No, it’s not a new car model.  It’s a new model for electing our representatives. “Count My Vote,” or CMV.

Its companion legislation SB 54, was originally found in a 26-page legal brief to the members of the Utah State Central Committee in early 2013. I read it and have heavily annotated it.

DC attorney-lobbyists from Caplin and Drysdale drafted it.  If you search this site using the terms “caucus system” and “Utah Caucus” you will find over 20 articles and posts on this topic.  At this point, I feel like a broken record, but if you are among the first-time readers, I’m simply trying to summarize and update.

This legal brief was provided to the SCC members as a threat.  Then GOP Party Chairman Thomas Wright sang their tune, “This is serious.  If we don’t do this now – if we don’t compromise – we will lose the entire caucus!”

I and many others didn’t take the bait.  And thankfully so, in hindsight.

The Legal Threat:  A Compromise?

The brief laid out CMV’s legal premise for why the caucus system was unconstitutional, and it proposed a “dual track” as the remedy. (SB54 fans, sound familiar?)

A dual track means that a candidate can get on the ballot one of two ways: 1) by going through a caucus-convention process, sponsored by the party or 2) by petitioning to get on the ballot outside of that caucus system. Even an unaffiliated candidate could declare a Republican label in a dual track system.

In the states that have this system, the political party becomes irrelevant and, for purposes of this Republican discussion, the GOP loses its meaning, its platform and any authority to define and protect it.

Senator Curt Bramble collaborated with CMV and sponsored the dual track bill called “SB 54.” He and the supporters of CMV brilliantly dubbed it the “compromise.”  Everyone loves a “compromise” these days, and many in Utah believed it.

Compromise, baloney.

CMV proposed the very dual track system of that original brief, drafted by the same DC lobbyists that support the Democratic National Committee and that funded Stephen Colbert’s SuperPAC that mocked and ridiculed Republican candidates in 2012 – including Mitt Romney.

Money buys the media message, and that is what CMV does. If Utah wants lobbyists and the super rich and their cronies to control their lives, growing government to their own advantage, to YOUR disadvantage, then this is your Model T.

Just as with Chuck Barber’s private corporation – his franchise, CMV/SB 54 empowers government to confiscate and turn over another corporation – The Utah Republican Party – and hand it to competitors by dictating who owns it (the unaffiliated – Democrats in disguise), what its rules are, who can be members and how they are elected.

Plutocracy in Motion

Money has bought deception once again, and this is the way the “Establishment” controls. CMV represents an elitist group of the rich and famous, of big business and government interest. How is that any different from the way Washington works?

Deseret News columnists LaVarr Webb and Frank Pignanelli are excellent lobbyists, media buyers and political consultants. They support this confiscation of private ownership CMV/SB 54 because it favors them – incumbents, celebrity and money (their clients) – and more of them. It’s a big cash cow over which they are salivating.

The legislature supported CMV/SB54 to protect their re-election. It’s the Little Guy (you and me – the People) against the Big Guy. Wiht CMV/SB54, Webb, Pignanelli et al and the legislature control the outcome.

The Founders’ Response

This controversy is nothing new.  The Founders guarded against this priestcraft.  They knew that most people do not have time, or lack the interest, to get involved in political campaigns. For this reason, they guaranteed every state a representative republic – not a democracy – in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.  The caucus is that representative republican election system where direct democracy shines where they knew it was best – in every neighborhood.  From there, representative government kicks in.  The only branch of government that was intended to be a popular (“democratic”) vote was for the U.S. House of Representatives!

We’ve come a long way, baby.  Does it surprise you that the same people that believe the U.S. Constitution was meant to be a “living, breathing document” and that it is out-dated, are the same that want to eliminate this representative, republican election system?   They knew all too well what it was like living under an elitist monarchy or plutocracy (government by the rich).

A Lobbyist Dream

CMV/SB54 is the elitist system that most states have adopted that fuel runaway budgets. It is the model that DC uses to keep those 30,000 bloodsuckers well-fed.  Is it any surprise that these DC lobbyists that back CMV/SB54 use California, Colorado and Connecticut as their models?  Lobbyists want the people least involved and informed and the unaffiliated to dictate the outcome to those that are most involved and informed – and affiliated.  This is a lobbyist dream come true!  (Disclaimer:  not all lobbyists are blood-suckers.  A few are actually trying to keep government out of their businesses, not seeking more subsidies and favors.)

The Republican Party is a private corporation. CMV/SB54 gave authority to lobbyists and the legislature to dictate how a private corporation elects its representatives.  It allows those who are not members of that private corporation to steal its trademark by petition.

Following the CMV/SB54 model, perhaps we can now use those same principles against other private corporations such as Webb’s PR-lobbyist firm Exoro Group and the other Utah lobbyist group Foxley & Pignanelli to tell them we don’t like how they do their business. The Republican platform disagrees with one of their clients – The Chamber of Commerce – because that organization supports amnesty and the federal takeover of education, commonly called…common core.

The Republican platform supports marriage between a man and a woman is at odds with Overstock, the corporation that funded $50,000 to legalize same sex marriage in Utah. Perhaps we should ask the legislature to apply SB54 to the take over of that corporation.  We want to tell them who their clients can or cannot be, and we want to use their name to do it.

Message to CMV/SB54:  You Have a Conflict of Interest During This Lawsuit

Out of self-interest, these lobbyists want the Republican Party to stop its defense and to declare defeat because it lost the injunction.  They fail to acknowledge that the Idaho Republican Party pressed forward to win for the voice of the people against the elite – after losing its injunction.

This legal challenge is a serious constitutional First Amendment and trademark question: Does a private corporation have the right to freely assemble and choose its principles, membership, leadership and voting process, all in alignment with Article 4, guaranteeing the states and its people a republican form of government?

Now…CMV/SB54 wants a new party chair.  It’s disturbing that the very media outlet that has self-interest in the outcome of this party matter is so vigorously continuing to interfere and disrupt. James Evans has been true to his promise to defend the caucus. We won’t always agree with everyone 100% of the time. But it’s clear that this lobbyist firm wants him gone. Of course. They want the caucus gone.  They want all of us who oppose their unprincipled tactics to be gone.

The SCC members would like to respectfully ask LaVarr Webb’s and Mike Leavitt’s media machine to allow our elected leaders and members to continue to find solutions that will be in the best interest of private enterprise and the platform of this corporation and its Constitutional right to determine who its members are, what they believe in and how it functions.

If anyone supporting CMV/SB54 wants to get involved in a respectable way, they can run for a party leadership position and get elected.  But they will need to recuse themselves from the lawsuit.

We are the Party and our leaders have committed to us to see this lawsuit to its conclusion.  Those opposed have a conflict of interest and should not be privy to the plaintiff’s legal discussions and should kindly be excused from those deliberations.  This includes Governor Herbert and his legal counsel.  Attorney General Sean Reyes has already recused himself.  Anyone who voted for SB54 should likewise be considered removed from the client-attorney confidence.

A Solution for CMV-SB54
Those who want a platform of compromise on principles can, and should, create their own party.

I’m unclear as to why they continue to grouse.  If the caucus system breeds such extremists, one only needs to look as far as the legislature’s score cards.  It seems to me they already have what they want –  a very lukewarm, moderate to liberal group of legislators on Utah’s capitol hill.

Only a handful in the Senate and about 17 in the House vote according to the Utah Republican (or national Republican) platform 90-100 percent of the time. They are the A Team that CMV/SB54 wants to eliminate.  The “mainstream” moderates and liberals already control the legislature and have 50% of our federal delegation.

What ARE they complaining about anyway? It seems to me that the caucus system has served their purposes well.  We have one senator that is now serving his 7th term of office!  Were elected offices meant to be lifelong careers?

The campaign to kill the caucus is not limited to Utah.  It’s a nationwide effort.  The supporters of CMV/SB54-like pro-elitist/lobbyist systems have been destroying this nation by compromise moving it further toward more big government and centralization with each election cycle.

What they most fear is knowing that the caucus is especially advantageous when an elected official has overstayed the welcome and needs to be retired. The delegates are more likely to be following what’s actually going on, rather than simply relying on the media propaganda. They know that by virtue of having attended a caucus and being elected to the office of delegate, the delegates are too informed and paying too much attention as compared to the regular working man or woman.

If they can get rid of that roadblock to career incumbency, they will control us little guys forever – from the top down. They will continue to vote for federalized education, common core national standards, regardless the new labels placed on it. They will continue to grow a socialist model for medical care all the while claiming they are conservative.  They will continue to bind us to the dangerous deficits that are destroying this nation. They despise the handful of honest “Mike Lee’s” we have at the national and state level who have the courage to say “The emperor has no clothes.”

It appears that CMV/SB54 elites are too all-important to ever take the time to roll up their sleeves and do the grunt work and get involved in our coalitions at the capitol.  We’re the “unwashed masses” of volunteers who really don’t have the resources, but who sacrifice anyway. We never see the CMV/SB54 donors  involved in the Party or coalition committees in which they could volunteer to serve.  They would never condescend to call one of us on the phone and ask to meet with us.  I know.  I’ve tried to call nearly all of them at one time or another in my fundraising.  Perhaps that will change.  I know I’d pick up the phone and talk to them if they called.

This is the Republican Party’s defining moment.  Will it restore its roots in conservative philosophy or will it continue to be run by the Establishment?  Will it be the party of principle or will it be co-opted by those that compromise principle for their own gain?

Count My Vote-SB 54 Lies and Legends

So much misinformation is floating around the topic of Count My Vote and SB 54. Unfortunately the lies and legends are being promoted recently by the Deseret News. It’s beginning to look a lot like an editorial endorsement to destroy the Republican Party.

That’s not surprising. The editorial board is liberal-leaning, and newspapers make more money when there are more primaries and more candidates.

Which all makes sense, because that’s exactly what CMV/SB54 accomplishes.

The opinion editorial written by Dan Liljenquist, former state Senator, who I personally like (and whose wife has a beautiful singing voice, by the way) and the column that Utah’s high profile lobbyists, LaVarr Webb and Frank Pignanelli wrote recently, merely complicate, confuse and rehash old misinformation.

Sadly, none of these authors have been involved in the discussions between delegate-elected party leaders, delegate-elected State Central Committee members, of which I’m a member, and delegates themselves who are actively engaged in finding solutions. The sideline quarterbacking, the misrepresentations, and the belittling of the hard work of Republican Party Chairman James Evans, the Executive Committee and the State Central Committee in defending its constitutional rights is disheartening, to say the least.

One such legend was attached to the Liljenquist article and bears some review: that SB54 was a compromise. No. CMV threatened the State Central Committee (of which I’m a member) in 2013 with a 26-page legal brief that demanded Utah move to a dual track. SB54 has mandated a dual track.

The commenter wrote:

If the Republican Party wants to pay all the costs for having their own primary, then they have the right to keep it closed and use only the caucus system. If it wants the government to pay for the primary, then the government has the right to set some rules, which they did.

The legislature rescued, rather than sold out, the caucus system with SB54. Without it, the caucus system would be history by now – thanks to the Count My Vote petition. No thinking delegates should be bad-mouthing the legislature, unless they are just keeping a closed mind and refusing to see the facts.

(It’s kind of ironic. This is the same inconsistency delegates had with the push for vouchers. The supporters wanted to get government money for private schools, but thought they could get it without government control. It’s just not possible. Freedom isn’t free. It costs time, money, and/or blood. You want freedom? Then pay for it!)

Let’s examine these points.

The Public-Private Partnership
Who should pay for a primary? Great question. The legislature decided that many sessions ago with the “check a buck” program. That could be changed. The Republican Party could pay for its own primary, but the Democrat Party would not be able to sustain itself.

The “ironic” comment in the last paragraph makes an interesting point using the voucher bill as an example: what about the public-private partnership anyway?

The school voucher law failed, but look what happened: Even though the voucher law was repealed by referendum, the legislature doesn’t need vouchers for private schools anymore. Instead, a private school can now apply for a public charter, and they get the vouchers! The commenter is correct: By so doing, they must comply with all the federal and state laws.

The troubling fact is that, in some communities, private schools can’t compete with FREE charter schools. The result is that they are either being forced to go out of business, apply for a charter and secularize. Quite a dilemma for a Catholic or religious private school. And for the Republican principle of free enterprise and “choice.” But everyone LOVES charter schools. So three cheers for charters!

(BYU also takes government funds for research grants and student loans. By so doing, it must comply with government regulations.)

Corporate America is also in bed with the public-private partnership. How many corporations now ask for subsidies or are given tax incentives to relocate to a state or community? Instead of private corporations training their own employees, as they once did, these corporations now rely almost entirely on colleges and universities and trade schools to do it for them – at taxpayer expense.

So, yes. It’s true. There are problems with this arrangement. My point is that it is not just the Republican Party, it’s across the board in nearly every facet of our lives. Government gets to pick and choose who gets to play in a public-private partnership. That is certainly not a Republican ideal.

Defining Membership
CMV/SB54 would allow anyone – the unaffiliated – to petition on to the Republican Primary. Judge Nuffer opened the door for the Republican Party, as a private corporation, to define membership. That’s the purpose of this on-going discussion. Republican leaders are now entertaining all possible solutions that would solve the problem of government telling it what to do. We are now compelled to do whatever we can to prevent a run-away primary under CMV/SB54. Some ideas are better than others. But we have a process and elected leaders who are taking this seriously. We have spent countless hours over the past two years to make improvements where possible.

We now that we know the party can define membership, he question is, what are the qualifications and what is the process for party membership? Is this such an outrageous question? Is membership not the right of any private organization to determine?

A far-fetched, but analogous example is the LDS Church (or any church for that matter). Perhaps the legislature should also tell the LDS church that it must the allow the unaffiliated to be baptized. Wait. Why should there be any qualifications – baptism, commandments, basic tenets of belief. Anything goes.

This is not so far-fetched, when you consider the religious liberty challenges of this recent legislative session, and the extent to which the LDS church went to protect not only its employees, but its church leaders, affiliates, the Boy Scouts of America and its for-profit, commercial enterprises. It went so far as to define “employer” and believe it or not, none of those for-profit businesses are employers, not even the BSA. So, membership definitions are critical.

Do you see the ridiculousness of what CMV/SB54 is imposing on a private organization?

The second point in this confused comment is that with SB54, the legislature rescued the party from losing the caucus to CMV. This is nonsense. CMV was nearing a deadline and did not have nearly enough signatures to get on the ballot. They knew it and so it is precisely the opposite: SB54 rescued CMV.

(As an aside, as with any election process that involves petitioning, there were improprieties involved in the CMV petitions. That should be a forewarning of what we can expect if unaffiliated candidates are allowed to petition on to a ballot. Just ask states that use this dual process.)

SB54 is CMV Tweedle dumWhat the sponsor of SB54 (Senator Curt Bramble) did was to ensure that the dual track, described in the original 2013 CMV legal brief, was enshrined in law through the legislative process. If not, why then are the CMV proponents working so hard against the lawsuit? It’s just tragic that most legislators probably had not seen that original CMV legal brief. I have a copy if anyone is interested.

Lobbyists Love CMV
So Webb and Pignanelli say we should stop this discussion before we embarrass ourselves further.

Webb and Pignanelli are no doubt excellent lobbyists, media buyers and political consultants. They support CMV/SB54 because it favors incumbents, celebrity and money (their clients) – and more of them. The majority of the legislature supported CMV/SB54 to protect their own re-election.

It’s the Little Guy (you and me – the People) against the Big Guy. Webb, Pignanelli and the legislature can control the outcome with CMV/SB54.

Most people do not have time, or lack the interest, to get involved in political campaigns. For this reason, the U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a representative republic – not a democracy in Article IV.

The caucus is just that – a constitutional system that is defined by a representative republican form of government election system.

On the other hand, CMV/SB54 is the elitist-lobbyist system that most states have adopted that favor and fuel runaway socialist budgets. The liberal DC lobbyists that have been backing Utah’s CMV/SB54 use California, Colorado and Connecticut as their models.

It’s to a lobbyist or political consultant’s advantage to keep the election among the people least involved and informed so that the unaffiliated can dictate to those that are most involved and informed and affiliated. Why? Because in a primary, name ID will win nearly every time. That means an incumbent advantage. Lobbyists love incumbents. They keep the money rolling in.

The Republican Party is a private corporation that is guaranteed the unalienable right to assemble freely and unfettered. Yet the Utah legislature gave CMV/SB54 authority to lobbyists and themselves to dictate how a private corporation elects its representatives and allows those who are not members of that private corporation to steal its trademark by petition.

Fair Is Fair, Right?
Perhaps the legislature can now use those same principles against other private corporations such as Webb’s Exoro Group and Foxley & Pignanelli to tell them we don’t like how they do their business. We don’t like their clients, one of which is the Chamber of Commerce, because they support amnesty and common core which violate the platform. And we don’t like Overstock, the corporation that funded $50,000 to legalize same sex marriage in Utah. We want to tell them who their clients can or cannot be, and we want to use their name to do it.

These lobbyists want the Republican Party to stop its defense of out of self-interest. They fail to acknowledge that the Idaho Republican Party pressed forward to win for the voice of the people against the elite after losing its injunction.

The First Amendment and What Accountability Has to Do With It
This legal challenge is a serious constitutional First Amendment and trademark question: Does a private corporation have the right to freely assemble and choose its principles, membership, leadership and voting process, all in alignment with Article 4, guaranting the states and its people a republican form of government?

If so, then how does the party maintain its platform (its “articles of faith”) and what is the process of membership qualification, and once a member, what is the process of holding their feet to the fire, especially the candidates we vetted and elected.

Senator Todd Weiler and a few others are squirming right now because they know they are among the Republicans that vote with the Democrats half the time. And so, lies and legends are covering up the real issue: those that favor CMV/SB54 do so because they do not want to be held accountable.

And that’s the truth.

For more truth, go to Fair Elections Utah, compiled by one of our colleagues, Representative Fred Cox, with whom I serve on the State Central Committee.

Who’s Who in the Legislature: Utah’s Constitutional Republic Election System

American Leadership FundI’ve written several articles addressing the attack on Utah’s Constitutional Republic election system – called the “caucus convention.”

In 2014 the Utah Legislature voted to intervene in the affairs of a private corporation specifically to dictate to it how it will elect its corporate members and who they can be – similar to a corporate board.  Except, what the legislature said was that Macy’s no longer has the exclusive right to appoint or elect its leadership, its CEO and board and voting shareholders.  Instead Gimble’s now has the right to take over Macy’s and petition to manipulate a hostile takeover of Macy’s.

Put another way, should a state legislature have the right to intervene in the business affairs of another private corporation – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tell it – by law – how it can appoint or elect its Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and who will be the next President of that church?

Outrageous you say?

Well, that is what the Count My Vote campaign is asking and that is what Senator Curt Bramble and others who are catering to the elite in Utah have done.

Corporate law prohibits such interference from competition in this manner.  (Unless you are General Motors and President Obama.  You may recall how the president stripped franchise owners of their own private contracts.  In Utah those car dealership owners stood at a press conference and, some very tearfully having lost their entire life’s investment in one letter, rightfully described it as communism.)

This matter of a political party’s right to a caucus convention was also challenged in Idaho and was found to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment protection to freely assemble.

Perhaps some of Utah’s legislators did not realize what they were doing at the time, but at this juncture they should be aware of the troubling circumstances they have complicated further.

In fact, it could be said that they acted in contempt of the very party that elected them.  And they continue to do so in this session.

Senator Curt Bramble is at the center of this conflict.  He was the sponsor of SB 54, promoted as the “fix.” He promised that it was “severable,” meaning a portion of the bill could be separated from the rest and dealt with.  However, members of the State Central Committee knew otherwise.  Read former legislator Chris Herrod’s expose here.

Now Senator Bramble tells the Republican Party it’s not severable.  In any other circumstance, this would either be incompetence or obfuscation.  In either case, Senator Bramble and those that followed him in support of SB 54 must be held accountable.

The elite of Utah are behind this attempt to destroy the Republican Party and to infringe on the rights of a private corporation so that they can not only elect their wealthy and famous friends, but also limit it to those that can afford the costly primaries that the media buyers otherwise miss out on with a caucus – convention.

The Republican Party has rightfully filed a lawsuit to defend its first amendment rights.  The Constitution Party has joined the lawsuit with identical concerns.  They should know.  Their party carries the namesake of the very law that is being torn to shreds by Utah Republicans the people elected to the state legislature.

They are also being lied to by local media, especially, but not limited to, Doug Wright.  He also should be held accountable.

Every business owner should be shuddering at the precedent the Utah legislature has created should SB 54 stand.  It means that independents (primarily progressives and Democrats that find it advantageous to run as “independent” or “non-partisan” so they can be elected in a predominantly Republican state) can enter a Republican primary and win it.

The Democrat Party should also be shaking in its boots.  In areas such as Salt Lake City, it would not take much for Republicans to run and take over precincts that the democrats hold by simply usurping the Democrat Party imprimatur.   It removes the same First Amendment rights from the Democrat Party as it does the Constitution, the Libertarian or the Republican Party.

The fundamental questions are:  does a private organization have a right to self-determination and definition?

Does a political party have the inherent and God-given right to declare its beliefs and who will represent them?

The answer is yes.

I am a member of the Utah Republican State Central Committee.  Senator Bramble and others who followed his lead were led down a dangerous path of brambles.  The following Republicans from the 2014 legislative session, knowingly – or otherwise deceived – have done serious harm to the Republican Party and to each of us who have been duly elected to represent its best interests.  We have spent countless hours and sacrifice from our families and work raising funds and defending the interests of the grassroots against an small elite group of people who wish to manipulate with their money or fame:

Utah Senators

Adams, J. S. Bramble, C. Christensen, A. Davis, G. Dayton, M.
Escamilla, L. Harper, W. Henderson, D. Hinkins, D. Jenkins, S.
Knudson, P. Mayne, K. Niederhauser, W. Okerlund, R. Osmond, A.
Stephenson, H. Thatcher, D. Urquhart, S. Valentine, J. Van Tassell, K.
Vickers, E. Weiler, T.

Utah House of Representatives

Anderson, Jerry Arent, P. Bird, J. Brown, M. Chavez-Houck, R.
Christensen, L. Cosgrove, T. Dee, B. Draxler, J. Duckworth, S.
Dunnigan, J. Edwards, R. Eliason, S. Fisher, Janice Froerer, G.
Greenwood, R. Hall, C. Handy, S. Hemingway, L. Hughes, G.
Ipson, D. King, B. S. Last, B. Layton, D. Lifferth, D.
Lockhart, R. McCay, D. McIff, K. McKell, M. Menlove, R.
Moss, C. Nelson, M. Nielson, J. Peterson, J. Peterson, V.
Poulson, M. Powell, K. Romero, A. Sagers, D. Sanpei, D.
Seelig, J. Snow, V. L. Spendlove, R. Stratton, K. Tanner, E.
Webb, R. C. Westwood, J. Wiley, L. Wilson, B

In the 2015 session, the following Republicans were true to the oath they swore to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of Utah.  Most of them became aware of the constitutional matter which had not been presented to them in 2014 and they voted for a bill that would have helped the Republican Party, SB 43 and they deserve our thanks.  This is actually representative of a core group of Utah Senators that primarily vote with a constitutional compass.

Christensen, A. Dayton, M. Henderson, D. Jackson, A. Jenkins, S.
Madsen, M. Millner, A. Stephenson, H. Thatcher, D.

The following Republicans, although they have voted constitutionally on other measures,  have acted in this instance to harm the Republican Party and the interests of the people against the elite.  Perhaps some of them simply trusted their leaders or were pressured to do so?

Adams, J. S. Bramble, C. Dabakis, J. Davis, G. Escamilla, L.
Harper, W. Hillyard, L. Iwamoto, J. Knudson, P. Mayne, K.
Niederhauser, W. Okerlund, R. Osmond, A. Shiozawa, B. Stevenson, J.
Urquhart, S. Van Tassell, K. Vickers, E. Weiler, T.

Congratulations to Chris Herrod and Craig Frank and their www.UnConventionConservative.com blog site, and others who have worked very hard to get the truth to Senator Bramble’s colleagues and for their integrity in stopping SB 254, the SB 54 highway that circled around CMV City in this 2015 session.  Here are the Senators that voted to HOLD the bill in committee.  We appreciate them for their diligence.

Dayton, M.
Hillyard, L.
Hinkins, D.
Jackson, A.
Thatcher, D.

Here are some talking points in favor of the caucus system and why so many of the grassroots that understand its benefits are concerned about:

Many have asked about the specific objections the Party has to SB 54 (the Utah Legislature/Count My Vote compromise). Please see eight major objections below – (for the sake of brevity, preserving our constitutional rights is a given):

1)     The SB 54 compromise allows candidates who are not Republicans to run on the ballot as Republicans.

2)     It allows a candidate to be on the Republican primary ballot without having to get one Republican signature.

3)     It allows someone to win a Republican primary with as little as 10 percent of the vote, because there is no majority vote requirement.

4)     It forces the Utah Republican Party to have all 29 county conventions in a two week period

5)     It does not allow the Republican Party to ensure that candidates running on the Republican primary ballot even acknowledge that they support the Republican Party’s platform.

6)     Count My Vote has never been about increasing voter participation. It has always been about finding another and easier way to gain access to the Republican Party brand, and they are using the appeal of increasing voter participation as the rallying cry to do it.

7)     We have one state convention in 2015 to make all the required changes to comply with the aggressive 2016 timeline.

8)     If we can’t comply with the SB 54 requirements in time, Republicans may not be on the ballot in 2016.

We need your support today to continue in this fight.  Please consider a donation of whatever amount you are able – $10. $25, $50, $100 or more – a monthly donation is also welcome.  Simply text “ALF” to 313131 or