The Crucial Balance: Political Rights and Constitutional Rights
Why comprehensive bylaws are necessary and very important to push back against the forces of corruption.
There is a growing sentiment among many in the public eye that political parties are synonymous with corruption. This belief is not only not entirely unfounded but does provide an accurate picture of what is wrong with American politics. Parties are largely divorced from those they pretend to represent.
The governance of political parties was never included in the United States Constitution, creating a fertile territory for lawyers and the wealthy to exert their influence and control over the U.S. government. The United States Supreme Court has largely taken a hands-off approach to the regulation of political parties, exacerbating this problem. Conversely State Supreme Courts have always championed making rulings that preserve and empower a two party system - that limits choices and provides a monopoly to Democrats and Republicans.
Several legal rulings have upheld this hands-off approach, with the Supreme Court concluding that political parties, as private entities, are sacrosanct and beyond the reach of federal, state, or local government control. Yet, we see private organizations regulated by the government every day. The legal philosophy behind the minimal regulation of political parties is rooted in the notion that these are private associations that should be free from governmental interference. However, this rationale no longer holds water in the current political landscape.
➢ Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut (1986): The Supreme Court ruled that political parties have the right to determine their own membership rules and procedures, thereby affirming the autonomy of political parties from state interference. This case highlighted the constitutional protection of political parties' associational rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
➢ California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000): The Court struck down California's blanket primary system, ruling that it violated the First Amendment rights of political parties by forcing them to allow non-members to participate in their candidate selection processes. This decision emphasized the right of political parties to control their own internal affairs and candidate selection processes.
➢ Cousins v. Wigoda (1975): The Court held that political parties have the authority to govern their own conventions and delegate selection processes without state interference. This ruling reinforced the notion that political parties, as private associations, have the right to determine their own internal governance.
➢ Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee (1989): The Supreme Court invalidated California laws that regulated the internal affairs of political parties, such as their organization and endorsement processes. The Court ruled that these laws violated the First Amendment rights of political parties, further solidifying their autonomy from government regulation.
➢ New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres (2008): The Court upheld New York's judicial convention system for nominating state judges, ruling that political parties have broad discretion in structuring their internal processes and selecting candidates. This case underscored the deference the Court gives to political parties in managing their own affairs.
Political parties wield immense power and influence, often using it to protect themselves from organic grassroots reform initiated by the people. This power was first significantly challenged in the early 1900s during a period of party reformation. It was during this time that popularly elected precinct representatives emerged, and party primaries were codified into law. The idea was that states would create the laws under which political parties were recognized. The recognition of a candidate's party affiliation served as an indicator of the party's platform, making it easier for voters to understand what each candidate stood for without having to delve into the details of every individual.
Discipline within political parties was once a cornerstone of their operations. Parties held their representatives and candidates accountable to the party platform at all levels of government—municipal, county, state, and national. If candidates failed to keep their promises, it was the party's duty to discipline them. Parties would withhold support and endorsements from candidates who did not adhere to the platform, ensuring a degree of integrity and accountability.
However, the landscape has shifted dramatically. Political parties now often serve the interests of their most powerful members and special interest groups, rather than the broader membership or the public at large. This shift has eroded the trust and faith that the public once had in political parties as instruments of democracy. The influence of money and special interests has corrupted the core functions of these parties, making it difficult for genuine reform to take place.
One glaring issue is the Supreme Court's reluctance to allow political parties to be more heavily regulated. This reluctance is based on the belief that political parties are private associations protected by the right of free speech. However, this argument falls apart when we consider that other political entities, such as political action committees (PACs), are highly regulated. The inconsistency in the regulation of political entities highlights a fundamental flaw in the current system.
There is a pervasive belief that political parties use their power and influence to secure rulings that protect them from reform is not without merit. The party bosses and special interests that control the parties have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. This control became evident after the early 1900s reformation when the power of the party bosses was crushed by a populist reform movement. The populist reform movement championed the need to codify party primaries into law and create a system where party officials were popularly elected. The party bosses and the entrenched establishment fought back making the interference of how parties were governed sacrosanct - and the old guard of establishment political party leadership has been at work to take their power back while maintaining the perception that the people actually control their parties. Additionally, the pervasive legal wisdom is designed around maintaining a two party system making it harder for independents and third parties to enjoy the advantages of being either a Republican or Democrat party.
Today, the challenge is even greater. The influence of money in politics has grown exponentially, making it difficult for grassroots movements to gain traction. The legal protections afforded to political parties have created an environment where reform is nearly impossible. The parties have become self-serving entities, more concerned with maintaining their power than with representing the interests of their members or the public.
The management of political parties in the United States is a breeding ground for corruption. The Supreme Court's hands-off approach to regulating political parties, combined with the influence of money and special interests, has created a system that is difficult to reform. The rationale behind treating political parties as private associations no longer holds true in the face of their immense power and influence. The Republican and Democrat monopoly deserves to be broken and robust competition should be embraced and not feared. It is time for a reevaluation of the legal framework governing political parties to ensure that they serve the people, not just the interests of the powerful few. Without such reform, the illusion of democracy will continue, and the true people's voice will remain unheard.
A very hard truth is that political organizations, such as parties, are essential to the proper conduct of government - city, county, state, or national. America has a government “of the parties and by the parties” which are a result of the free assembly of the people. Political parties are supposed to bring people together to enact proper controls on the government, develop policies favorable to their interests or the groups that support them, and organize and persuade voters to elect their candidates to office. Without effective organization of the parties by the people, there would be no competent parties representing the will of the people in government. Today, that is a reality, parties are no longer continuing organizations built around platforms. When political parties become weak and ineffective due to poor organization and corruption, then a government incompetent in representing the will of the people is a result
Political Rights
In our modern discourse on governance and civil liberties, much attention is rightly given to Constitutional rights. These rights form the bedrock of our legal framework, ensuring that individual freedoms are protected from governmental overreach. However, there exists an equally vital, yet often overlooked, domain of political rights, enshrined in the bylaws of our State and County political parties. These rights are crucial in maintaining a grassroots process that genuinely represents the people's will and is not dominated by money. Rights providing checks and balances on party leadership to prevent the erosion of democratic principles. We have seen that rich and successful men and women have very kooky ideas about the government's role in America.
To understand the significance of political rights, we must first appreciate the function of Constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights, as delineated in the U.S. Constitution, sets forth a series of negative rights—limitations on the Federal Government designed to safeguard individual freedoms. This concept of negative rights is essential, as it restricts the government's ability to infringe upon personal liberties, ensuring a balance of power that is fundamental to a functioning democracy.
Similarly, the bylaws of political parties must also include negative rights for leadership. These rights act as a check on the power of party leaders, preventing the concentration of authority and the potential for corruption. Without such safeguards, party leadership can become unaccountable, operating primarily for the benefit of special interests and the wealthy elite. This creates an illusion of representation, where the party claims to serve its members but is, in reality, manipulated by external influences.
The influence of special interests within political parties is a profound concern. These interests can shape the party's operations and manipulate electoral outcomes, ensuring that candidates who align with their agendas are favored. This subversion of the democratic process undermines the very foundation of representative democracy. When a political party ceases to represent its members, it loses legitimacy and becomes a mere tool for those with the resources to exert control.
This is where the importance of robust county and state Republican elections becomes evident. These elections are a critical mechanism for mitigating the influence of special interests. By ensuring that party leadership remains accountable to its members, we can preserve the integrity of the democratic process. Transparent and fair elections within the party structure help to prevent the manipulation of candidate selection and ensure that the party's actions reflect the will of its constituents.
Furthermore, the presence of checks and balances within political parties fosters a culture of accountability and transparency. It encourages active participation from party members, who can hold their leaders accountable for their actions. This participatory dynamic is essential for a healthy democracy, where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few but distributed among the many.
Political rights, as codified in the bylaws of political parties, are just as crucial as Constitutional rights in maintaining a democratic society. Both sets of rights serve to limit the concentration of power and protect individual freedoms. By ensuring that party leadership remains accountable and that the party genuinely represents its members, we can prevent the subversion of the democratic process by special interests. The integrity of our political system depends on a vigilant and engaged citizenry, ready to uphold the principles of democracy at every level. It is only through such vigilance that we can ensure our political institutions serve the people they purport to represent, rather than the interests of a privileged few.
THE HIDDEN HANDCUFFS: HOW CENTRAL COMMITTEE BYLAWS CONTRIBUTE TO POLITICAL DYSFUNCTION
In today's political landscape, many citizens are frustrated with the behavior of their political representatives and party leadership. A critical yet often overlooked aspect of this problem lies within the bylaws of County and State Central Committees. Many Central Committee members may not realize that bylaws lose their efficacy if they can be easily suspended by a simple majority or two-thirds vote. When any article within the bylaws can be suspended at will, these bylaws are no longer steadfast bylaws but are more appropriately called “rules”, effectively undermining their purpose and paving the way for "might makes right" governance.
This might makes right approach bears a striking resemblance to socialist principles, where central committees, much like those in historical communist party structures, directed all party and governmental activities. Today, many Central Committees across America operate similarly, with a small group wielding disproportionate power and often running the party without sufficient oversight.
This is how our representative republic ceases to represent the people and represent the special interest.
The Power of Small Committees and the Irrelevance of the Central Committee
One major issue is that many party bylaws empower a small committee to run the party when the full Central Committee is not in session. This small committee often operates without limits on its power, rendering the Central Committee essentially irrelevant. Such policies make it unnecessary for the Central Committee to convene regularly, allowing a few individuals to control the party's business unchecked. Central Committee members have no rights when they adopt bylaws that effectively give their power away.
Checks on Leadership and the Role of State Party Conventions
Effective bylaws should include mechanisms to check runaway leadership, such as requiring a state or county party convention every two years to potentially remove ineffective or corrupt leaders. Additionally, the powers of the Central and Executive Committees should be clearly enumerated, preventing leadership from unilaterally expanding their authority without amending the bylaws. Are these rights in your Central Committee bylaws?
Enforcement and Consequences
For bylaws to be meaningful, there must be penalties for not adhering to them. Without consequences specified in your bylaws, it is easy for leadership and members to ignore the rules. Clear provisions for enforcement ensure that the bylaws are respected and followed, maintaining order and accountability within the party. Do the bylaws of your central committee provide these rights?
Mission, Vision, and Legislative Objectives
A significant issue within many Republican organizations is the lack of clearly defined legislative objectives. While beliefs and values are important, they do not obligate action. Organizations must set a mission, vision, priorities, goals, and legislative objectives to commit to accomplishing specific outcomes so that the party does not become lazy and ineffective. This approach mirrors the strategic planning of organizations like the Ohio Chamber of Commerce or Ohio Teachers Union, which regularly outline short-term and long-term objectives.
Failing to require the development of these strategic elements within the bylaws can lead to complacency, allowing the party to become aimless and susceptible to special interest manipulation. A well-defined mission and legislative agenda ensures that the party remains focused and accountable to its members.
Grievance Resolution and Transparency
Effective bylaws must provide a fair process for resolving grievances, particularly between leadership and Central Committee members. Without such mechanisms, leadership can act with impunity, leaving civil litigation as the only recourse—a route often avoided by members due to the cost of litigation and avoided by the courts. Ensuring Central Committee members can inspect financial records unencumbered and have legal counsel present at meetings is essential for transparency and accountability. Do your bylaws have these rights for central committee members?
Parliamentarians should be required to act in the best interest of Central Committee members, and officers must recuse themselves from conflicts of interest and act in good faith. Central Committee members should have fiduciary responsibilities akin to those in any other non-profit association, maintaining party documents diligently. Do your bylaws have these rights for central committee members?
Candidate Debates
Bylaws should require Republican candidates to participate in debates before primaries, enabling registered Republicans to make informed decisions. Do your bylaws provide this right for registered Republicans?
Ethical Standards
Provisions for transparency, ethical conduct, and whistleblower protections are crucial for maintaining trust with registered Republicans. Even the perception of untoward activity has a detrimental effect on the party. Additionally, there should be a clearly defined process to ensure bylaws are equally applied to all members, preventing arbitrary or biased enforcement. In many cases County and State Parties embrace having no integrity because it allows them to wield more power over the political process.
Reform for a Stronger Party
The bylaws of County and State Central Committees play a crucial role in the behavior of political representatives and party leadership. Without robust checks and balances, the party risks becoming a corrupt, self-serving entity. Good Republicans may become disillusioned, believing reform is impossible, leading to their disengagement and further entrenchment of the establishment.
To restore faith and functionality, it is essential to focus on establishing and enforcing bylaws that ensure transparency, accountability, and strategic direction. By doing so, the party can better serve its members and the public, countering the influence of special interests and promoting genuine representation.
Failure of precinct strategy groups that are blind to the importance of the bylaws and the need to establish rights is a certain path to further destroying patriotism and patriots becoming further disillusioned with the party and efforts to reform it.
Conclusion
Precinct strategy does not start with your heart filled with anger. It starts with identifying and fixing the problems. Many times it is hard for those to know what is wrong if they are in the thick of it. Yes, Central Committee members will run over you and ignore the bylaws even if you adopt new ones. The reason to adopt new bylaws that are detailed and not vague is so that you have an easier time going to court - which you can do much easier and without a lawyer if you have detailed and specific bylaws. Judges that are reluctant to engage in the internal struggle of a political party are much more likely to engage when bylaws are clear, concise, and specific. Detailed and specific bylaws help greatly in keeping the leadership in check. It is also a relief to everyone within the party and helps to stop the party infighting when bylaws are specific and detailed. So remember you are asking for trouble when your bylaws are not lengthy and specific.
Without bylaws that provide rights to central committee members - and -without bylaws that provide specificity - you essentially trade one set of tyrants for another.