Another midterm election is upon us.
And, in
2022, the Libertarian Party has achieved ballot access in forty-one states,
plus the District of Columbia.
(Source: TheGreenPapers.com;
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G22/parties.phtml?party=LBTN#CA)
In one
of these states – Illinois – six of the Libertarian Party’s nominees will be on
the ballot:
- Scott
Schluter (running for governor along with lieutenant governor candidate John
Phillips),
-
Secretary of State candidate Jon Stewart (a former professional wrestler,
former Republican, and candidate for the party’s gubernatorial nomination in
2018),
-
attorney general candidate Dan Robin,
-
treasurer candidate Preston Nelson,
- comptroller
candidate Deirdre McCloskey, and
- Bill
Redpath, the party’s state chair, who is running for U.S. Senator from
Illinois.
Recent
polls have put Scott Schluter at between four and nine percent of the vote.
[Source: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/governor/2022/illinois/]
In the
voting districts in which Libertarian candidates receive more than five percent
of the vote on Election Day, the party – in most places now classified as a
“new party” – will officially qualify as a “minor party”.
[Note:
A minor party is defined, by the F.E.C., as a party which received between five
and twenty-five percent in the previous election. A new party is one that
received between zero and five percent.
In
those jurisdictions, the Libertarian Party – and any other party receiving more
than 5% – will be eligible to receive public taxpayer funds, “based on the
ratio of their party’s vote in the preceding presidential election to the
average of the two major party candidates in that election”, according to the
F.E.C..
In his
October 10th, 2016 article for RealClearPolitics.com, titled ““Why
Gary Johnson Can Still Make Election History”, author Bill Scher wrote, “…don’t
you think for a second that the vehemently anti-big-government Libertarians
won’t cash that big government check in a heartbeat.”
But, to
anyone who is familiar with libertarian political theory and voluntaryist
ethics, this presents a problem, as “Taxation is Theft” has been a slogan in
the party for some time now.
For the Libertarian Party of Illinois
to accept taxpayer funds, would involve receiving funds which were arguably
stolen, or extorted, from non-consenting civilians.
Among
those members of the party who do want the party to accept
public funding, claims that “We’re just following the same rules that everyone
else has to follow” seem tempting. After all, these rules affect other small
parties in the same way, and the party could use the funding. “We need the money”.
However, to accept such funds, would be immoral, and should be
considered immoral by Libertarians.
The
party will certainly not be done “needing money” after
receiving such taxpayer funds. And, of course, needing something is not a
valid reason to take it from somebody.
We must
stay true to first principles.
The
collection of taxes is done through a soft, legalized form of violence.
Although the collection of personal income is done “without violence” (when the state and the I.R.S. take it out of your check), it is only non-violent on its face. In truth, the government would consider it an act of violence if you were to show up at a government tax office and try to recoup some of what was taken from you, claiming that you are owed a refund for bad service. And just the same, if you were to make attempts to conceal your wealth, or defend yourself and your property against confiscation. And the government would use real violence – i.e., physical force – to confront you, and to punish the actions you took, which the government chooses to perceive as violent. But it is the government which initiated force (started the fight).
Additionally, some members of the party feel that voters never agreed to be
subject to certain types of taxes in the first place. But whether Amendment XVI
(which allowed income taxation) was duly ratified or not, the taxation of
personal income, by the federal government, should
still be considered immoral (legalized theft).
The fact that the money has
already been taxed, justifies neither the continuation nor the increase of funding to new
organizations. The fact that taxpayer funds previously supported a set of
activities which were, overall, less inclined to promote liberty, does not justify
reinventing ourselves as a new arm of the government (instead of a political party) before we are duly
elected.
To accept extorted funds from
taxpayers, to fund our political party, would be to participate in, and benefit
from, the non-consensual use of other people’s money to promote a political cause
which about 95% of them do not endorse.
A party that asks its members to sign a pledge promising that they do not support the use of violence to achieve political goals, should not wait to receive funds that were extorted from taxpayers at the threat of violent arrest and imprisonment, while sitting on its hands, pretending that it doesn't approve of that arrangement.
For the Libertarian Party to accept
public funding, would be for the party to say to the taxpayers, “Pay us, or
else.” We would become what we hate. And it would demoralize us.
Going
through the experience of being treated nicely (rather than fairly) by this public funding law, might cause Libertarians to, one day, conclude that the rest of
the arrangement is fair, in regard to election law.
They could conclude that
Democrats and Republicans are equal participants in a fair system.
This is obviously not the case, however, as the major parties' previous electoral successes have allowed them to be "grandfathered in" in various ways (such as their duopoly on the authoring of campaign finance regulations; and their control over who qualifies for debates, through the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates).
If “the
rules” allow the legalized extortion of people’s wealth, then “the rules”
cannot possibly be fair in the first place. The Libertarian Party should not
participate in a rigged game, no matter how lightly rigged it appears to be.
Those
rules can be changed, and with little notice, and little effect on the party’s
activities.
And the
way the rules are written now, they arguably promise a kind of charity to
smaller parties, whom arguably do not necessarily deserve that charity.
Especially ones which are known for their support of meritocracy and their
opposition to government being charitable with “other people’s money”.
Think
of what would happen if a fascist or authoritarian party
– one that openly wanted to expand the size, scope, and budget of government –
were to receive enough of the vote to qualify for public funds? The same law
that allows the Libertarian Party access to those funds, allows public funds to
be given to any party receiving more than five percent of the
vote.
We must
not resort to “arguments from benevolence”; arguments which fascist parties
could easily use for their own purposes.
Just as
we would not argue that government is a “necessary evil”, so must we avoid
arguing that the Libertarian Party should support evil (i.e., involuntary)
sourcing of tax revenues in order to fund ourselves as a “necessary” arm of the
government.
That is
why no argument, based on “the rules”, nor practicality, should be allowed to
stand, in regard to the debate over whether the Libertarian Party should accept
taxpayer funds as a consequence of achieving more than five percent in the
election.
While
optimistic Libertarians tend to comfort themselves with the notion that
receiving public money will serve the necessary and practical purpose of
funding our party’s important work, the election returns have not yet signified
that the public agrees that our work is necessary.
To
accept public funds would arguably turn the Libertarian Party into an arm of
the government. Not just the government, but a statist government;
one which most party adherents consider too centralized, monopolistic, and
immoral, to be able to exercise its powers without resorting to more violence
(and legitimizing violence in the process).
Why
should the Libertarian Party become a sort of "Department of Redundancy
Department" within its hated enemy, the State, when it could remain a
private, voluntary political organization, like it is supposed to be? It would
only serve to legitimize the State, if the party were to "join" the
government in this manner, before it is even elected.
The situation would undoubtedly be ironic. But what
are we going to say to taxpayers when they rightfully point out that the
party’s receiving stolen funds to become an arm of the government, is not only ironic, but also hypocritical?
While the irony of an anti-tax party receiving taxpayer funds will serve as an amusing spectacle that will draw some new voters in and make them curious, we cannot be sure that our defense of receiving public funds will not turn off many potential voters who would be more interested in us if we were less hypocritical.
By and large, if and when the Libertarian Party elects to receive public funds as a consequence of surpassing five percent of the vote, we will be ridiculed. We will be treated as if we were Ayn Rand showing up at the Social Security office to pick up her check.
The fact that it seems necessary and proper to us to do anti-government work within the government, means nothing to most voters. And if the history of the expansion of government tells us anything, it is that what is necessary and proper to one group of people may not be necessary and proper in the eyes of another group of people.
We must not pretend that the expenditure of extorted taxpayer funds will do good to the taxpayers simply because the recipients believe that they are using the money to do good.
We do not deserve this money unless and until we
convince taxpayers that there is something in it for them. If members
of the public want to send us money, nothing will stop them after we achieve five percent of the vote, just as nothing will have stopped them beforehand.
The
Libertarian Party should decline and refuse public taxpayer funds whether
or not it surpasses five percent of the vote.
This
would show consistency, and dedication to our voluntaryist principles. It would
also demonstrate our adherence to a law which makes us eligible for
public funding, but which does not require us to accept the
money.
Most
importantly, it would provide the Libertarian Party with an important
opportunity, which no other party would be likely to take, given the same
circumstances: We would get an opportunity to save the taxpayers money
without even taking office.
This could be a “teachable
moment” to voters, which could be pitched as “giving the public a refund” or “getting
the taxpayers their money back” as an apology and reparations for bloated government, waste, and mismanagement.
Although this would be only a small step towards fixing the government’s
budgetary problems, it should be framed as such anyway, to avoid risking the public's contempt by appearing to pat ourselves on our own backs in self-congratulation. We should make it clear that more "refunds" are coming whenever we are eventually elected.
It doesn't matter how much the influx of funds would help the party. Nor does it matter how small a step it would be to return those funds, when it comes to filling deficits in government budgets.
Principles matter. And voters remember hypocrisy.
The party should keep its eyes on the prize of remaining untouched by tainted money (and also, of saving the taxpayers money).
Moreover, rejecting public funds would not be a total loss, in terms of the party's overall success.
If we take a stand opposing theft from taxpayers when it is most important to do so (that is, when that theft stands to benefit us), then we may receive goodwill, and a boost in popularity and reputation, that will far outweigh the economic loss sustained in refusing public funds.
We will get good press, and more people will consider voting for us in the future.
Additionally, we will stand out as the first small party to oppose taxing people to fund political parties which they may not support (and to which they might even have strong ethical objections). Refusing public funds would send a message that, when other small parties accept public funds, they are benefiting from legalized theft (just the same as it would be if Libertarians - or Republicans or Democrats, for that matter - were to accept them).
And who
knows? Refusing public funds might even garner the party some voluntary donations (so economic loss isn't assured).
And
voluntary donations are the best kind of donations, because they’re the only
donations that are ethical to accept.
How much money we take in, through “playing
by the rules” doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as whether the money is
obtained ethically in the first place.
For the party to accept what amounts
to - from the perspective of any self-respecting student of libertarian ethics - “legally stolen funds” (that is, funds extorted through violence that is legitimized through formal legal processes) would
be to participate in a transaction that should be considered not only antithetical to our stated moral precepts, but also legally null and void.
It
should not even have standing in court, just as an ordinary person would have no standing if he knowingly agreed to receive stolen goods, and then claimed to be entitled to something to which the seller had no legal right to sell in the first place.
We
should neither commit theft, nor become its beneficiaries, nor be party to
theft in any way. We must follow our pledge to oppose the use of violence to achieve not only political goals, but economic and social/moral goals as well.
If we accept the receipt of public taxpayer funds, for the purposes of funding the Libertarian Party, then we will not be able to defend that position, without "losing our soul" by abandoning our principles.
The
Libertarian Party should not only promise to refuse, decline, and return all
taxpayer funds eligible to be disbursed to them in accordance with the law; it
should advocate for the repeal of the law that allows private political
parties to receive public funds before they are elected to office.
It would be profoundly immoral for
the Libertarian Party to choose to receive public funds long before acquiring
the power to eliminate forms of tax revenue acquisition which are collected in
manners other than voluntary donation and "fee-for-service" or
"use-based system" models.
We, in
the Libertarian Party, must send the message that campaign
funds are supposed to be earned fairly and freely; that is, through free,
unpressured requests, made by either paid campaign workers, or volunteers who
work unpaid but volunteer their labor enthusiastically.
To
refuse public funding would be the least that the party could do; to relieve
the taxpayers of the burden of paying for us to exist, and to give the public a
reason to like us, and see us being consistent.
Many of us (myself included) have steadfastly opposed, on free speech grounds, having regulatory limitations upon the rights of private individuals and groups to donate money to political campaigns. This position is very unpopular in a nation in which some four in five voters disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C..
The Libertarian Party must send the message that it supports some form of limitations upon campaign donations. To accept voluntary donations from private sources, while refusing to accept funds received through extortion and expropriation, would communicate, very clearly, that we do have limits, in regard to campaign finance.
Being less opportunistic, by refusing public funds, will help convince the public that we are not as greedy and selfish as the public sees us, but merely rationally self-interested (as Ayn Rand sometimes clarified).
If the Libertarian Party receives more than five percent of the vote, then it should decline to receive funds extorted from the taxpayer.
The party should immediately make it clear that it does not intend to perpetuate the cycle of legitimized violence and theft, by electing to receive those funds.
It should, as soon as possible, undertake a mission to find candidates for office who will promise to author (and run on) new legislation which will afford equal opportunity for all parties, while providing stolen funds to none.
Update (added on November 13th, 2022):
Early results, posted to the Libertarian Party of Illinois group on Facebook on November 13th, indicate that Scott Schluter received about 2.9% of the vote, just under 110,000 voters.
Updated on November 13th, 2022