Surely We Can Do Better?

By George Phillies

Every four years, the Libertarian party runs a candidate for President. He (though the Libertarian Party's first female Vice Presidential Candidate, Toni Nathan, in 1972 did receive one electoral vote) will raise millions of dollars, campaign from sea to shining sea, put out the Libertarian message, and represent the Libertarian Party to the American people. This book asks a key question. Those millions of dollars: How were they spent? Surely We Can Do Better considers the 2008 campaign of Bob Barr and the 2012 campaign of Gary Johnson.

• Language: English
• Publisher: George Phillies
• Release date: Apr 14, 2016
• ISBN: 9781311749154

George Phillies

George Phillies is a retired Professor of Physics. He also taught in Biochemistry and in Game Design. His scientific research is focused on polymer dynamics. He also writes science fiction novels and books on politics. Books by George Phillies include:FictionThis Shining SeaNine GeesMinutegirlsThe One WorldMistress of the WavesAgainst Three LandsEclipse, The Girl Who Saved the WorldAiry Castles All AblazeStand Against the LightInpreparation: Practical ExerciseBooks on Game Design SeriesContemporary Perspectives in Game Design (with Tom Vasel)Design Elements of Contemporary Strategy Games(with Tom Vasel)Stalingrad for Beginners - How to PlayStalingrad for Beginners - Basic TacticsDesigning Board Wargames - IntroductionBooks on PoliticsStand Up for Liberty!Funding LibertyLibertarian RenaissanceSurely We Can Do Better?Books on PhysicsPhysics OneElementary Lectures in Statistical MechanicsPhenomenology of Polymer Solution DynamicsComplete Tables for ‘Phenomenology of Polymer Solution Dynamics’

Book preview

Preface

This volume considers the financial activities of the Johnson 2012 and Barr 2008 Libertarian Party Presidential campaigns, to the extent that these activities are revealed by their financial filings with the Federal Election Commission. I have done this before. You can read my analysis of the 1996 and 2000 Libertarian Presidential campaigns in my book Funding Liberty.

There are many books on Federal elections. This one is unusual in two respects. First, I talk about Libertarians, not Democrats or Republicans. Second, I consider where the money went, not where the money came from. My audience is campaign donors, people who want to know how their money was spent or wasted. My audience is not the general public, people who want to know who invested in America by buying a Congressman.

Some readers will not have the enthusiasm to slog through masses of financial detail. I therefore buried those details in the later parts of the book, namely Part III on the Johnson campaign and Part IV on the Barr campaign. Part I of the book supplies an Introduction. Part II of the book provides a descriptive summary and conclusions. Part II explains what Parts III and IV show about the campaigns. Wedged between Parts II and III of the book, separating the conclusions from the financial fine detail, is an Aside explaining where I obtained my information.

Readers should recognize that there is an extremely large supply of numbers here. While everything has been checked, it is reasonable to assume that there are still a few typographic and similar errors in the following. I do not believe that any of these potential errors can be large enough to have a significant effect on our conclusions.

Chapter: Part I Introduction

Once again I turn to analyzing the financial disclosures of Libertarian presidential campaigns. You can read about the 1996 and 2000 campaigns in my book Funding Liberty. This time I turn to the 2012 campaign of Gary Johnson and the 2008 campaign of Bob Barr.

Should there be interested readers? To quote the FEC final audit of the Johnson campaign, footnote 5, referring to the entire campaign from early 2011 through to the end of December 2012: GJ2012 received approximately 24,500 contributions from more than 1,400 individuals. That’s at least 1400 people whose money went someplace, as discussed in this book. Furthermore, Johnson’s ballot access in November 2012 was in large part sustained by the donors of the Libertarian national party.

In 2012, the national party had close to 14,000 members. Some of them thought it was worthwhile to donate to Johnson’s 2012 campaign. At the same time that Johnson’s donors were giving, the national party spent around a half million dollars to put the 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate on the ballot. That half million came from the donations of those 14,000 national party members. That’s another 14,000 people whose money went someplace. This book shows what those people got for their money.

You may usefully contrast the results seen below with the recent and successful Massachusetts Attorney General campaign of Maura Healey. As reported in Worcester Magazine, Healey’s campaign raised in a financial range close to that raised by the Libertarian National Committee. Healey targeted bringing in around $100,000/month. Healey’s campaign had a second target. It had the objective of spending roughly 75 cents of every dollar raised on media outreach. That’s a bit better than what you will read in the following. Healey won.

The Aside in front of Part III explains at great length how FEC filings work. In brief, FEC filings for a campaign reveal how much money was raised and from whom, how much money was spent and where, and what debts are created. Approximately speaking, each filing covers a month or a quarter, and is made soon after the month or quarter ends. Amended filings can be made much later; they correct errors.

Johnson 2012 made a full set of original filings covering from April 2011 through to December 2012. In February 2013 the campaign replaced all of its original filings with a complete set of amended filings. The amended filings showed vastly more debt, and not incidentally made it far more clear how money was spent. In February 2015 the campaign made a second complete set of amended filings. Our analysis of the Johnson 2012 campaign uses all of these filings.

Some readers are doubtless waiting with bated breath for the revelation of great misdemeanors. Those readers are about to be disappointed. So far as I have found, everything that you are about to hear described was entirely legal, save for a few minor bookkeeping errors noted in the FEC audit.

There will doubtless be questions about the terminal debt of the Johnson 2012 campaign. Remember that there are three distinct legal entities here, namely Johnson himself, the Gary Johnson 2012 campaign, and the Gary Johnson 2016 campaign. The two campaigns are legally distinct corporations. Any creditor of the GJ2012 campaign has no recourse--no basis for litigation--against the other campaign and its advisors. There is therefore more or less no likelihood that money given to GJ2016 will become involved in disagreements over 2012.

Chapter: Part II Conclusions

This Part presents a set of conclusions about the Johnson 2012 and Barr 2008 campaigns. For readers who want to hear conclusions at less or more length, I present the conclusions three times, first as a set of bullet points, then as a one-page executive summary, and finally as full-length discussions.

Chapter: Bullet points

Lack of Timely Disclosure Our 2012 National Convention delegates were misled as to the state of Johnson 2012’s campaign finances.

Johnson’s Republican Campaign Johnson’s 2011 campaign spent six dollars out of seven on staff and one dollar out of seven on outreach.

Presidential Matching Funds Counting a debt to the U.S. Treasury, Johnson 2012 lost money by taking Federal matching funds.

Abandoning Its Debt The Johnson 2012 campaign finished its run 1.5 million dollars in debt. It offered some creditors nothing, and other creditors an object that it admitted was worth much less than claimed.

A Historical Sequence How the truth came out, a small bit at a time.

What Did We Get for Our Money? How were campaign donations spent?

Barr 2008 Barr 2008 gave us a campaign that spent even less money on outreach than Johnson 2012 did.

Chapter: Executive Summary

Timely Disclosure: 2012 National Convention delegates could read the FEC financial disclosures available before the convention. Those delegates are the people who chose our 2012 Presidential candidate. Those disclosures were untrue. 2012 National Convention delegates could read that Johnson’s campaign, at the end of March, was in debt for $152,373. The actual debt as of March 31, 2012 was $1,078,371, seven times as much. Johnson only revealed his true debt in February 2013, after the election was over. Worse, Johnson had made a secret deal with his campaign management. If Johnson won the nomination, his campaign firm got a $300,000 win bonus, which took his campaign debt instantly to $1,378,371.

Johnson’s Republican Campaign: In 2011, Johnson ran for the Republican Presidential nomination. His financial management was hidden until 2013. Our 2012 convention delegates had no way to know how he had actually spent his money. In 2011, Johnson raised $578,124. He spent $560,000 of that, leaving $18,012 in cash. On 12/31/11 he also had $858,458 in debts. Where did the $1.4 million go? Staff salaries? Nearly $800,000. Fundraisers? Almost $230,000, an effective 35% commission. Add back office, bank charges and more? Grand total: more than 1.2 million dollars. What about reaching the public? Candidate travel, mailing, shipping, web ads, web pages, etc. were the other $200,000. One dollar in seven went for direct campaigning.

Presidential Matching Funds: Johnson 2012 tried to cover campaign debt with Presidential campaign matching funds. The campaign raised $632,017 of these. The FEC finally ruled that $333,441 had been spent improperly and was required to be returned to the treasury. To keep the corresponding $298,576 in matching funds, Johnson 2012 spent $308,921 in administrative and legal costs. If Johnson 2012 had refunded the $333,441, it would have lost money by taking the matching funds.

Abandoning Its Debt: The Johnson 2012 campaign finished its run 1.5 million dollars in debt. As a final settlement, it offered most creditors nothing. Other creditors were offered as a payment transferrable copies of Johnson’s data list.

A Historical Sequence: How did the truth came out? Between the first filing covering the month around the 2012 general election, and the first filing covering December 2012, there was an enormous transition. At election time, Johnson 2012 claimed it was $197,002 in debt. At the end of the year, Johnson 2012 was suddenly $1,134,602 in debt. Then, in February 2013, Johnson 2012 admitted the truth, or at least some of it. It had been a million or more in the hole when Johnson was nominated.

What We Got for Our Money: Gary Johnson, the man who was