Libertarian Party of Nevada Censures Assemblyman John Moore

screen-shot-2016-10-20-at-12-09-16-pmLas Vegas, Nevada (17 October 2016) – The Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Nevada unanimously censured Libertarian Assemblyman John Moore last Friday for his support of two tax increases on Nevada citizens in the past week. His betrayal of principles with an unscrupulous YES vote on the $2 billion taxpayer-funded Raiders stadium hurt the already-exploited taxpayers of Nevada, damaged the credibility of the Libertarian Party of Nevada, and shattered the confidence of tens of thousands in their Assemblyman. Additionally, his vote in favor of the “More Cops” tax comes as a surprise; this is a measure the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly fought the Clark County Commission on for years.

Over the past two years, the Republican-led legislature of the State of Nevada has raised $2.6 billion in new taxes. Disgusted by the passage of the first round of tax increases in 2015, Assemblyman John Moore left the Republican Party and joined the Libertarian Party of Nevada, becoming the Libertarian Party’s first legislator in Nevada’s history. When Assemblyman Moore made the switch, the Libertarian Party of Nevada was proud to have earned the support of a fierce anti-tax veteran and offered our own support in return.

Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nevada, Alexander DiBenedetto, was quoted saying “The Libertarian Party prides itself on saying ‘principles before party.’ This past week, Assemblyman John Moore abandoned both.”

Northern Regional Representative, David Colborne, of the Libertarian Party of Nevada, and Candidate for SD15 stated “When you’re a Libertarian legislator, your first – and last – two votes as a legislator shouldn’t be tax increases.”

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

83 thoughts on “Libertarian Party of Nevada Censures Assemblyman John Moore

  1. Andy

    So this is our supposed “Libertarian” in the Nevada State Legislature?!?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    DIdn’t the LNC vote in favor of giving this guy $50,000 for his re-election campaign, even though he offered no plan for how the money was going to be spent, or even have the word Libertarian mentioned on his website, and even though he had not really proven himself to be a libertarian?

    If so, then another HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

  2. Austin Cassidy

    Andy – Wasn’t the $50,000 LNC donation for Indianapolis city councilman Ed Coleman’s re-election? That was a few years ago and Coleman lost badly.

  3. Andy

    I know the thing with Coleman in Indiana, but I am pretty sure that the LNC voted to give this clown money as well. I will look it up when I get the chance, unless somebody else here beats me to it.

  4. Andy

    The LP of NV did the wrong thing by bringing this guy into the party and endorsing his campaign without properly vetting him.

  5. Thomas Knapp

    AMcCarrick,

    Expecting a Libertarian legislature to not vote for a ginormous corporate welfare check and publicly censuring him when he does isn’t “purism.” It’s basic common sense and brand defense.

    This action is evidence that the LPNV deserves to survive.

  6. Andy

    It would be nice to see similar brand defense actions taken against Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    Give me a break . . . It sounds like scolding a child.

    This is the sort of condescending and patronizing crap that drives people away from the LP. Another example of how reality is a foreign concept to some.

  8. Tony From Long Island

    This is a sure way to attract others!

    “Hmm, let me consider the LP . . I agree with much of what they espouse, but if I don’t do exactly what they want, they might speak to me like a child. . . .”

  9. Tony From Long Island

    Yeah, there should never be a single dime in the government’s coffers!! Ever!! Right on!!!

    #reality #.5% #NeverGrow #ShitCostsMoney #We’reAllInThisLifeTogether

    goodnight everyone 🙂 (except Andy . . I don’t want you to have a good night)

  10. Thomas Knapp

    Tony,

    The LP stands for things.

    The things we stand for are the REASON we support candidates for election to public office.

    When those candidates are in office and do THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what we helped them get elected to do, yes, we should spank them in public. We’re a political party, not a social club.

  11. Thomas Knapp

    And furthermore, Tony, this was about the opposite of money in the government’s coffers. It was about taking money out of those coffers, paid in by people who work for a living. to buy a new stadium for wealthy sports team owners.

  12. Tony From Long Island

    I understand and respect that the LP stands for things, but there’s a difference between that and reality. Scolding members like children is ridiculous.

    Now, I actually am going! 🙂

  13. Thomas Knapp

    Tony,

    Hit Bing and try typing in these two things:

    censured by the Democratic Party

    censured by the Republican Party

    Happens all the time.

    The LP’s “pragmatists” perpetually bellyache that we should act like a real party.

    Until we do.

    Then they bellyache about that.

    Apparently the definition of “pragmatist” is “someone who never walks a precinct, or takes responsibility for the outcomes of his grand ideas — that’s always someone ELSE’S fault.”

  14. Bondurant

    Commendable action by LPNV. There’s no excuse for supporting taxpayer funded stadiums for billionaires and bending to the propaganda that cities need more police. Both votes are inexcusable.

  15. Andy

    You all are neglecting to mention that he also voted in favor of another tax increase that gives more money to the police. This is as bad, or worse, than the tax increase for the stadium. Disgusting.

    Jackasses like this need to be run out of the Libertarian Party.

  16. Cody Quirk

    I applaud my state party for the principled stand that it had to take, but if we took Andy’s approach and ‘purified’ the L.P. and made the standards for being an active member ridiculously high, then we would become way smaller and more insignificant then the Constitution Party in no time.

  17. Andy

    “Cody Quirk
    October 20, 2016 at 16:23
    I applaud my state party for the principled stand that it had to take, but if we took Andy’s approach and ‘purified’ the L.P. and made the standards for being an active member ridiculously high, then we would become way smaller and more insignificant then the Constitution Party in no time.”

    That’s a bunch of BS. The Libertarian Party was at its largest back during the Harry Browne era, and the party was more hardcore Libertarian on average back then than it is today.

    “Libertarians” like John Moore, Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, etc…, are NOT doing us any favors. We’d be better off without them.

  18. Andy

    “Cody Quirk
    October 20, 2016 at 16:23
    I applaud my state party for the principled stand that it had to take, but if we took Andy’s approach and ‘purified’ the L.P. and made the standards for being an active member ridiculously high,”

    I don’t think that expecting an elected Libertarian to vote against a couple of tax increases is a ridiculously high or unreasonable standard.

    Contrary to what some here act like, I do not expect everyone to be perfect, or to agree with me on every detail of every issue, but you also have to draw the line somewhere as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and these actions from John Moore clearly cross that line as they are unacceptable.

    Can the LP of Nevada suspect his campaign and revoke his nomination as a Libertarian Party candidate? If so, they should do so immediately. They should also kick him out of the party.

  19. Andy

    “Thomas Knapp
    October 20, 2016 at 16:31
    ‘The Libertarian Party was at its largest back during the Harry Browne era’

    Nope. It just had more newsletter subscribers.”

    Membership peaked at 33,000 and something around the year 2000.

  20. Thomas Knapp

    “Membership peaked at 33,000 and something around the year 2000.”

    No, subscriptions to LP News at $25 per year peaked at 33,000 around the year 2000.

    Membership is currently at 150k+ and has been for a long time.

  21. Jim

    Andy “It would be nice to see similar brand defense actions taken against Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.”

    The Moore situation is not quite the same as Johnson/Weld. Moore voted for tax hikes and corporate welfare. That’s an expansion of government. Johnson supports incrementally smaller government. The complaint against him is that he doesn’t support shrinking government small enough or fast enough. Moore supports government moving in the opposite direction of libertarianism, where Johnson supports slowly moving government in a libertarian direction.

  22. George Phillies

    “Wasn’t the $50,000 LNC donation for Indianapolis city councilman Ed Coleman’s re-election? ”

    Except it was not re-election. He had been an at-large councilman. He ran in a district, against an incumbent so entrenched there was no duopoly party opponent, Claims that he was an incumbent, when he had in fact changed district, were untrue.

  23. Andy

    “Jim
    October 20, 2016 at 16:53
    Andy ‘It would be nice to see similar brand defense actions taken against Gary Johnson and Bill Weld.’

    The Moore situation is not quite the same as Johnson/Weld. Moore voted for tax hikes and corporate welfare. That’s an expansion of government. Johnson supports incrementally smaller government. The complaint against him is that he doesn’t support shrinking government small enough or fast enough. Moore supports government moving in the opposite direction of libertarianism, where Johnson supports slowly moving government in a libertarian direction.”

    Johnson and Weld have both called for expansions of government in multiple areas, and Weld did something that in some ways was even worse, by donating money to the big government Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, who is running against Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, Max Abramson.

  24. Andy

    “George Phillies
    October 20, 2016 at 16:59
    ‘Wasn’t the $50,000 LNC donation for Indianapolis city councilman Ed Coleman’s re-election? ‘

    Except it was not re-election. He had been an at-large councilman. He ran in a district, against an incumbent so entrenched there was no duopoly party opponent, Claims that he was an incumbent, when he had in fact changed district, were untrue.”

    Coleman was elected as a Republican, and while serving his term on the Indianapolis City Council, he switched to Libertarian. Another factor that worked against him being elected to the council as a Libertarian is that Indiana has a straight ticket voting device, so lots of voters just pulled the Republican lever and did not even bother to consider whether or not they should vote for Coleman as a Libertarian for the city council.

  25. Jim

    Andy “Johnson and Weld have both called for expansions of government in multiple areas…”

    I don’t know every singe thing they’ve said, so I can’t say you’re wrong, but I’d like a couple of examples from both of them. The only things I can recall them having said that irritated me were failure to cut or lateral moves. I don’t recall either of them saying they wanted to expand government.

  26. Thomas Knapp

    “Johnson supports incrementally smaller government”

    Well, he claims to.

    But his actual record is one of increased government revenues, increased government spending (both things he brags about) and increased government debt (which he doesn’t mention).

  27. Thomas Knapp

    ” I don’t recall either of them saying they wanted to expand government.”

    Weld has called for expanding victim disarmament (aka “gun control”) at the expense of due process.

    Johnson always couches much of his bigger-government stuff in “open to a discussion” rhetoric (e.g. carbon taxes, victim disarmament, etc.), but his tax plan calls for putting every man, woman and child in the US on a monthly federal government welfare check for life, and not for reducing taxes (his tax plan is “revenue neutral”). That sounds like an expansion of government to me.

  28. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “his actual record is one of increased government revenues, increased government spending (both things he brags about) and increased government debt (which he doesn’t mention).”

    Also unmentioned is that government revenue can increase even as the tax rate decreases, state government revenue can increase by the federal government transferring more money to the state, and spending and debt can increase even when the governor vetoes the budget because the legislature can (and did) override his veto.

    A better criticism of Johnson’s time as Governor, in my opinion, revolves around his lack of pardons for those convicted of victimless crimes.

    Thomas Knapp “revenue neutral”. That sounds like an expansion of government to me.”

    Revenue neutral means revenue neutral. That’s not an expansion, it’s a lateral move. He has advocated spending cuts to balance the budget.

    Thomas Knapp “Johnson always couches much of his bigger-government stuff in “open to a discussion” rhetoric (e.g. carbon taxes,”

    Johnson’s short term support for carbon taxes (that lasted about a day) was conditional upon lifting other regulations and taxes. Again, a lateral move.

    Thomas Knapp “…victim disarmament…”

    I must have missed that. What are you referring to?

  29. Andy

    I just check the Libertarian National Committee’s Federal Elections Commission filing from July, and it turns out that they sent $10,000, in two $5,000 payments, the the campaign of John Moore for Nevada Assembly.

    I remember debate taking place where some people who were leery of this brought up the fact that John Moore had presented the LNC with no plan as to how the money was going to be spent, and that he did not mention the word Libertarian on his campaign website.

    These should have been red flags to not send this guy any money, but unfortunately they voted in favor of sending him money anyway.

    Here is a link to the FEC filing that shows this (scroll down the the bottom of the page):

    http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00255695/1096309/sb/ALL

  30. Thomas Knapp

    “Also unmentioned is that government revenue can increase even as the tax rate decreases, state government revenue can increase by the federal government transferring more money to the state, and spending and debt can increase even when the governor vetoes the budget because the legislature can (and did) override his veto.”

    None of which changes the fact that when government gets bigger it is getting bigger, no getting “incrementally smaller.”

    “A better criticism of Johnson’s time as Governor”

    My objective was not to criticize Johnson’s time as governor, it was to point out that his record is one of ever-larger, not “incrementally smaller,” government. That’s just a fact.

    “Thomas Knapp ‘…victim disarmament…’ I must have missed that. What are you referring to?”

    If you’re talking about Johnson, it was in the first Stossel debate when he was asked about “keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.” He didn’t come out for it; as I indicated, he just babbled about being “open to a discussion” about it and so forth.

    “Open to a discussion” is politicianese for “please, dear God, don’t make me actually stand for anything.”

  31. Thomas Knapp

    —–
    Thomas Knapp “revenue neutral”. That sounds like an expansion of government to me.”

    Revenue neutral means revenue neutral. That’s not an expansion, it’s a lateral move. He has advocated spending cuts to balance the budget.
    —–

    Well, you left out the part where in addition to being “revenue neutral” it includes putting every man, woman and child in the United States on a monthly federal government welfare check for life. If you think that’s a “lateral move” (there’s no such thing, but if there was), you’re high.

  32. Just Some Random Guy

    Johnson and Weld have both called for expansions of government in multiple areas, and Weld did something that in some ways was even worse, by donating money to the big government Republican candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, who is running against Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of New Hampshire, Max Abramson.

    This claim is continually repeated. I would like to see better proof of it than the fact someone who donated put down their name as William Weld. There are a number of reasons I do not particularly care for Weld, but the only proof right now, as far as I know, is that someone who donated put their name down as William Weld.

  33. Andy

    Just Some Random Guy said: :This claim is continually repeated. I would like to see better proof of it than the fact someone who donated put down their name as William Weld. There are a number of reasons I do not particularly care for Weld, but the only proof right now, as far as I know, is that someone who donated put their name down as William Weld.”

    Are you really this dense, or are you really just in a very deep state of denial? Either one of those, or Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have got you on their payroll.

    If you think that somebody else made this donation, then you need to contact the Boston Globe and ask them to print a retraction, and you also need to contact the New Hampshire election officials and ask them to initiate an investigation for election fraud (as in providing false information with a campaign contribution), as well as credit card or check fraud (since the donation would have to go back to an account that has the name William Weld on it).

  34. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “his record is one of ever-larger, not “incrementally smaller,” government. That’s just a fact.”

    I’m not sure you understand how government works. A governor’s power to shrink government mostly resides in the ability to veto. If the veto is overridden, then government can expand even over the objection of the governor.

    Thomas Knapp [victim disarmament] “…it was in the first Stossel debate when he was asked about “keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.”

    Your wording was confusing. It seemed as if you were saying Johnson advocated for victims to be disarmed. You were actually saying, I suppose, that they were victims by being disarmed. It’s already federal law to sell guns to someone whom a court has determined is mentally ill or been involuntary committed to a mental hospital. So I guess Johnson would be open to a discussion on how to enforce that law? Depending on how that’s done, that’s not an expansion of government. It’s just not a reduction in government.

  35. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “Well, you left out the part where in addition to being “revenue neutral” it includes putting every man, woman and child in the United States on a monthly federal government welfare check for life. If you think that’s a “lateral move” (there’s no such thing, but if there was), you’re high.”

    You have a very warped definition of welfare. That check is a tax prebate. It’s only purpose is to cover the estimated *taxes* on necessities. It does not, as welfare does, cover the cost of the necessities themselves.

  36. Andy

    “Jim
    October 20, 2016 at 17:55
    Thomas Knapp ‘his record is one of ever-larger, not “incrementally smaller,’ government. That’s just a fact.’

    I’m not sure you understand how government works. A governor’s power to shrink government mostly resides in the ability to veto. If the veto is overridden, then government can expand even over the objection of the governor.”

    Governor’s have the power to grant pardons. How many people did Gary Johnson grant pardons to during the 8 years he was Governor. I looked it up a while ago. It was around 124-128, which is not very many, and even with these, he only granted these pardons AFTER people had already served their sentences.

    Gary Johnson was a Libertarian Party member for one year in the early 1990’s, and he claims to have been a philosophical libertarian since sometime in the 1980’s, yet as Governor, he did not release even one person from jail or prison who got arrested for a victimless crime.

  37. Thomas Knapp

    “You have a very warped definition of welfare. That check is a tax prebate.”

    No, it isn’t. A rebate is money back for tax paid (or in a real “prebate” for tax TO be paid).

    The fake “prebate” is not rebate of tax paid, or of tax to be paid. Every man woman and child gets the check every month whether that man woman in child pays $0 in tax, or $50 in tax, or $50 million in tax, ever. There is ZERO linkage between ANY payment of tax and receipt of the check. It’s just a welfare check and that’s all it is.

  38. Thomas Knapp

    And yes, someone here doesn’t understand how government works. But that’s beside the point. It’s not about how government works, it’s about the Johnson legend trying to have it both ways.

    He “incrementally cut” government.

    Well, no, he didn’t. Government grew under his governorship.

    Well, that’s not his fault.

    Whether it’s his fault or not is irrelevant to the question of whether he cut government or whether government grew. It grew. Period. So even if he can’t be blamed for it growing instead of shrinking (which is a hard case to make since the programs which more than doubled the state debt were almost entirely programs proposed by some guy named, um, Gary Johnson), he also doesn’t get credit for the shrinking that didn’t happen.

  39. Lobster Miner

    Johnson is another Republican plant. He’s just been more successful than Barr and Root in convincing the dummies otherwise.

  40. Jim

    Thomas Knapp “The fake “prebate” is not rebate of tax paid, or of tax to be paid. Every man woman and child gets the check every month whether that man woman in child pays $0 in tax, or $50 in tax, or $50 million in tax, ever. There is ZERO linkage between ANY payment of tax and receipt of the check. It’s just a welfare check and that’s all it is.”

    The version I saw goes to households, not individuals. So no child will get that check. I suppose, theoretically, a subsistence farmer could call it welfare. But for everyone else, it’s a prebate.

    Thomas Knapp ‘He “incrementally cut” government.’
    “Well, no, he didn’t. Government grew under his governorship.”

    I didn’t say he incrementally cut government. I said that’s what he supports.

    Thomas Knapp ‘Well, that’s not his fault.’
    “Whether it’s his fault or not is irrelevant to the question of whether he cut government or whether government grew.”

    Actually, it is entirely relevant. We don’t have kings in this country. A governor can’t write legislation and he can’t do anything about a veto override. All he can do is sign or veto bills that the legislature passes.

  41. Jim

    Andy “Governor’s have the power to grant pardons….”

    Yes. I’m the one who brought up his failure to issue pardons as a more valid criticism of his time as governor than the level of government revenue.

  42. Thomas Knapp

    “The version I saw goes to households, not individuals.”

    Yes, it goes to households — based on the number of individuals in those households. Little 3-year-old Bobby’s mommy or daddy collects his welfare check on his behalf.

    “Actually, it is entirely relevant. We don’t have kings in this country. A governor can’t write legislation and he can’t do anything about a veto override. All he can do is sign or veto bills that the legislature passes.”

    Person 1: I won the 1600-meter relay!

    Person 2: No, you didn’t — your team came in second.

    Person 1: But that’s not my fault. I was relying on three other people and they weren’t as fast as me.

    Person 2: So? That still doesn’t mean you won the relay.

    Person 1: Yes it does because I waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaant it tooooooooooo!

  43. Jim

    It goes to households and the amount of the check is based on the *the estimated upcoming tax payment for necessities* for the individuals in the house.

    The only way that qualifies as a welfare check – which is for the necessities themselves, not the tax – is if they never spend the money, which defeats the purpose of welfare.

    Your analogy is pointless.

  44. Thomas Knapp

    “It goes to households and the amount of the check is based on the *the estimated upcoming tax payment for necessities* for the individuals in the house.”

    Incorrect. It goes to households and the amount of the check is based on tax to be hypothetically paid on expenditures of up to the amount of the household income poverty line.

    But you get the check whether you pay one thin dime in taxes or not.

    It’s a welfare check.

    A tax that is specifically advertised as “revenue neutral” — meaning the government steals as much money from us as it used to with other taxes — and that comes with a brand new universal federal government welfare entitlement is not a “lateral move.” It is bigger government.

  45. Jim

    “It goes to households and the amount of the check is based on the *the estimated upcoming tax payment for necessities* for the individuals in the house.”

    “Incorrect. It goes to households and the amount of the check is based on tax to be hypothetically paid on expenditures of up to the amount of the household income poverty line.”

    It’s been around for years and there are different versions. Either way, it is based on estimated tax payments.

    “But you get the check whether you pay one thin dime in taxes or not. It’s a welfare check.”

    Nope. Welfare is for necessities. If you spend the check, then you are paying the tax. It can only be avoided by being a subsistence farmer and not spending any money.

    “and that comes with a brand new universal federal government welfare entitlement is not a “lateral move.” It is bigger government.”

    It’s not welfare and it is lateral. Typically, you ignore what doesn’t fit your narrative. Your mis-labeled “new entitlement” is balanced by eliminating the need for filing individual income taxes, eliminating the threat of an IRS audit for almost everyone, and reducing burdens on businesses such as navigating fica taxes and corporate income taxes.

  46. Thomas Knapp

    “If you spend the check, then you are paying the tax. It can only be avoided by being a subsistence farmer and not spending any money.”

    Surely you know better than that. The “Fair” Tax already exempts one major category of goods (used), and the special interest lobbies will be buy to pick up their favors before the ink is dry. Not to mention the black markets. That latter is the up side of the “Fair” Tax. It will probably put an end to the quacking about “legitimacy,” especially once the rate has to be jacked up to make up for the exemptions and keep the welfare checks coming.

  47. ATBAFT

    Did LPNV meet with their LP Legislator to discuss the upcoming vote on the stadium? Did they present him with the numerous studies that show these kinds of things are both pragmatically (don’t create jobs) and morally (using men with guns to transfer money to rich folks from less well off folks) wrong? If they did, what arguments did he make for voting as he did? If they didn’t, then maybe the LPNV just doesn’t take themselves seriously or think they deserve their exceptionally good fortune in landing a legislator who wants to identify with the LP.

  48. Joshua Katz

    I don’t post here very often, but I feel the need to respond to some points made here. It is not some sort of romantic, idealistic purism to expect Libertarian officeholders to get the easy stuff right – and the stadium vote was easy. It doesn’t get much easier than “should we give a subsidy to billionaires?” (I know, arguably, part of it is only going to a millionaire who is 3/4 of the way to a billion…)

    Censuring their highest-ranking officeholder for this vote is not some purist fantasy that will chase away those of good-will who don’t want to be held to a standard of perfection. It’s setting basic standards for what the LPN wishes to achieve. I’m a pragmatist, I want the party to elect Libertarians to public office in order to move public policy in a libertarian direction – not to vote for stadium subsidies.

    I am not a purist (but I also don’t think purist/moderate is the right dichotomy), I recognize that there are hard decisions where Libertarians will come out on both sides, and I also recognize that there are times when a vote for more government is the Libertarian choice. I’m sure any Libertarian could pick apart my record during my two terms in public office – and that even two “purists” would differ in what they’d criticize.

    Criticizing this vote is not akin to claiming the tax rate should be 0 or that “government shouldn’t have a single dime in their coffers.” It is akin, perhaps, to claiming that government should not hand out a single dime to billionaires. I would agree with that statement. It is not out of touch with reality to oppose such blatant and pointless cronyism.

    This is not purism. This is thinking that there’s a purpose to engaging in politics at all.

    As for the LNC money, well, if I knew then what i know now… I regret that vote. In fact, I spoke moderately against the motion, but then changed my mind and voted for it. I apologize to the membership for my vote, and I promise you that I have learned from it and will not repeat it. I won’t say that I won’t make other mistakes, of course.

  49. David Colborne

    Hello everyone – author of the motion to censure Moore chiming in, here to answer question. Let’s start with this one:

    Can the LP of Nevada suspect his campaign and revoke his nomination as a Libertarian Party candidate? If so, they should do so immediately. They should also kick him out of the party.

    No, we cannot suspend his campaign; in fact, he can’t suspend his campaign – see NRS 293.202 and NRS 293.165. We cannot revoke his nomination as a Libertarian Party candidate; that’s per state law (NRS 293.174 says “all affidavits and documents in support of the challenge must be filed not later than 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June.”). We also cannot kick him out of the party; per our state bylaws, all Libertarian Party registered voters are automatically members of the Libertarian Party of Nevada, so as long as his voter registration is in order, he’s a member of the Party.

    As for the propriety of the motion, this wasn’t a simple case of “semi-Libertarian legislator not being ‘pure’ enough”. In this particular case, the Libertarian Party of Nevada had been actively opposing the More Cops Tax in the Clark County Commission for the past few years; additionally, we set up the Don’t Raid Nevada Coalition specifically to oppose the stadium tax. In other words, Assemblyman Moore specifically voted against the Party itself, not just abstract, academic ideological issues. In fact, we were counting on him being a strong voice in support of our work, not a quiet vote against it.

  50. Andy

    How f’ing stupid does one have to be to think that the tax increase for the stadium and the tax increase for the police are good ideas?

    I think guy is just a corrupt two-faced lying asshole politician that successfully conned the Libertarian Party.

  51. Pingback: Random Shots for Thursday, 20 October 2016 | Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

  52. Rocky Eades

    re: the discussion about Johnson’s so-called “Fair Tax”.

    Currently some 50% of the people in the United State pay no taxes (other than possibly excise taxes of one sort or another) and no business owners are forced to collect any taxes (other than those excise taxes) to fund the United State federal government. Under Johnson’s so-called “Fair Tax” plan, nearly every person in the United State will have to pay taxes to fund the federal government and pretty much every business will be forced to become federal tax collectors. Sounds like a massive expansion of government to me!

  53. robert capozzi

    I’m not sure formal censure was necessary, but these were highly inappropriate votes by Moore. I’d like to hear his rationale, but it sounds like he’s a morearchist, not a lessarchist.

  54. Tony From Long Island

    Look, having the party censure someone for a particular vote is even more ridiculous when you consider the LPNH has not censured a party member for running for President against his own party’s nominee.

    This is the absolute wrong move if you want to encourage more people to join. Should the party talk to this guy about it? Sure, but publicly censuring a rather new member? Ludicrous!

  55. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    October 21, 2016 at 07:50
    Look, having the party censure someone for a particular vote is even more ridiculous when you consider the LPNH has not censured a party member for running for President against his own party’s nominee.

    This is the absolute wrong move if you want to encourage more people to join. Should the party talk to this guy about it? Sure, but publicly censuring a rather new member? Ludicrous!”

    Tony, it is quite obvious that you lack libertarian principles, because if you had any, you’d understand why these actions were correct.

  56. Andy

    “Lobster Miner
    October 20, 2016 at 18:30
    Johnson is another Republican plant. He’s just been more successful than Barr and Root in convincing the dummies otherwise.”

    BINGO!

  57. Tony From Long Island

    So, Andy, how do you feel about Censuring Daryl Perry for his write-in campaign? I bet you would be against that. Those principles you seem to love only apply sometimes eh? Someone who is trying to undermine the Party whose principles you love and adore . . . that’s all fine I guess.

    So, should any LP member who ever votes for a tax increase ever get censured?

  58. Austin Cassidy

    Censuring him for this is fine. It was the correct decision.

    I’d consider myself very pragmatic and see no issue with it.

    It would MAYBE be different had he been elected as a Libertarian and these were bad votes in a longer and more favorable legislative record. But this is it — he switched parties to join the LP and then he screwed up big time on two key votes.

    Assemblyman Moore is almost certainly going to be defeated for re-election in a couple weeks, so I’m sure the situation will work itself out.

    Should the LNC refuse to give money to Libertarian candidates or officeholders in the future because of this? Hell no!

  59. Andy

    Austin Cassidy said: “Should the LNC refuse to give money to Libertarian candidates or officeholders in the future because of this? Hell no!”

    The LNC should be more careful about which candidates they give money, and there should be a more thorough vetting process before any candidate gets nominated by the Libertarian Party.

    There were red flags about Assemblyman John Moore. I knew about the red flags back before this vote to give him money took place, and if I had been on the LNC, I’d have voted against giving him any money.

    Once again, I have been proven to be correct.

  60. Tony From Long Island

    Thankfully you are not in the LNC . . . I notice you skipped my question about your selective use of your cherished “principles.”

  61. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    October 21, 2016 at 09:40
    So, Andy, how do you feel about Censuring Daryl Perry for his write-in campaign? “:

    Darryl W. Perry’s write in candidate for President is perfectly justified. Why? Because the Libertarian Party’s ticket this year, of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, have advocated in favor of multiple violations of the Libertarian Party’s platform, and they have done so on multiple occasions, plus Bill Weld directly attacked the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, where Mr. Perry is the current State Chairman, by donating money to the big government Republican candidate for Governor, Chris Sununu, who has Libertarian Party opponent in the race in Max Abramson.

    The Libertarian National Committee’s bylaws have provisions to remove candidates who campaign against the Libertarian Party’s platform, and engage in other acts of misconduct, yet the LNC has refused to act in even having a vote to remove Gary Johnson or Bill Weld.

    Given these facts, there effectively IS NOT LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL TICKET THIS YEAR. There is a LINO ticket (Libertarian In Name Only) who are claiming to the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket, but since they clearly advocated for multiple Libertarian Party platform violations, and engaged in other acts that were against the Libertarian Party, and since the LNC has FAILED to do its job to remedy the situation (much like how the US Congress has failed to impeach and remove presidents who have violated the US Constitution and engaged in other high crimes and misdemeanors that should have made them unfit to hold office), then I do not recognize Gary Johnson or Bill Weld as rightful candidates for the Libertarian Party.

    Since the Libertarian Party effectively has no presidential ticket this year, Mr. Perry or any other member of the Libertarian Party is free to jump in the race as a write in candidate to give people who want to vote for an actual Libertarian in the presidential race someone for whom they can in good conscience cast a vote.

  62. Andy

    “IS NOT LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL TICKET”

    Should read, “IS NO LIBERTARIAN PARTY PRESIDENTIAL TICKET…”

  63. Thomas Knapp

    Tony,

    I’m a Darryl W. Perry supporter, but I don’t see why it would be problematic for the LNC to censure a life member for running against the convention’s nominee. Probably the only reason they haven’t done so is that it would draw attention to, and invite discussion of, the case for suspending the nominations of Gary Johnson and William Weld.

    In point of fact, the chair has publicly condemned Perry for his write-in campaign. Normally the chair of an organization does not introduce motions of censure, but instead condemns the behavior in question as a signal that he would welcome such a motion.

  64. Andy

    I have heard that there is more than money from Libertarians that went to this con-artist, John Moore, than the $10,000 from the LNC. According to what I have heard, Libertarian Party member Chris Rufer, sent a large check to the campaign of Assemblyman Moore. I am not sure of the exact amount of Mr. Rufer’s donation, but it may have been in the $40,000-$50,000 range. I am not sure if any other Libertarians donated money to the campaign of Assemblyman John Moore, but I believe that he received somewhere in the ballpark of $50,000-$60,000.

    If it is true that John Moore accepted a donation from Chris Rufer, this makes Moore’s actions even more disgusting, because a few years ago, Mr. Rufer led a referendum campaign in Sacramento, CA to repeal a tax increase to fund a basketball arena, so Mr. Moore would have essentially taken Mr. Rufer’s money, and then urinated in his face.

  65. Tony From Long Island

    Andy, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that you have no problem with someone undermining the LP ticket. You can use all the justifications and rationalizations (big prison words!!!!!) you want, but you are a hypocrite (among many other negative things).

    Your virulent self-righteous anger really does you no good. Ever get a stress test?

    —————————————
    On a more serious note, I understand how public funding for stadiums is an issue for libertarians. I have wavered back and forth on the issue in my life and I try not to be a homer. I had a very personal emotional interest in the New York Islanders staying on Long Island. The referendum to partially publicly finance the renovations fails by a close vote. They moved to Brooklyn to play in a terrible hockey arena and renovations happened in the Nassau Coliseum anyway. . frustrating.

    There are positives to having pro sports teams and negatives. Las Vegas will gets its first team next year in the NHL and I think it would be great for the Raiders to go there. Their stadium in Oakland is an abomination.

    I don’t know enough about this issue in Las Vegas, but I would rather stadiums be partially publicly funded than wholly.

  66. Tony From Long Island

    I know this might not be the right thread for this, but I just read a Gary Johnson quote that sums up the frustration I had with the LP:

    Gary Johnson – “(He insists that in areas where Libertarians think he doesn’t go far enough, it’s not that he disagrees with their values, but that “I think if you start talking about end goals that are completely unachievable…how about a goal that is achievable but gets you closer to the end result? You’ve heard me say that before. It’s pragmatic.”)

    I always say you have to go from A to B, not A to Z and this is the disagreement I have with people like Andy (though there are a litany of negative things I can say about him). In my opinion the “purists” have no sense of reality and of what is actually accomplishable right not.

  67. Austin Cassidy

    I think Moore being listed as a Democrat is an error in the SOS’s system. That page goes back to his first campaign in 2012, when he ran as a Democrat. Then he was elected in 2014 as a Republican.

    And is now seeking re-election as a Libertarian.

    He’s pretty obviously going to lose that campaign, so it’s a real shame that he didn’t at least ACT like a Libertarian when he had the chance to cast a few votes while representing the party.

    Moore would have a really tough time getting much support from Libertarians for any future campaigns, I would guess. Oh well, that’s politics.

  68. Shivany Lane

    Even when I was not a Libertarian I thought that using taxpayer money to build a Stadium for a professional team was stupid.

    Unless they are going to share the profits with the city they are in to pay us back for the money spent. Taxpayer money should not be wasted. It should be spent on things that benefit the community.

    Sometimes I am glad to live in California where many of these issues are on our ballot and decided by the voters not the politicians. It takes longer to research and to vote but it really is worth it.

  69. robert rich

    Jesus. This looks like more lamebrain infighting started by conservative pragmatists out to destroy this legislator while suckering in radicals who don’t know the libertarian direction strategy, or understand the Dallas Accord (see bottom of http://www.lp.org) mission, to do their dirty work–again.

    Show me specifically where LP or NV State platforms/programs say: Our LP state legislators will always vote no on involuntary taxes.

    ATBAFT is right.

  70. Thomas Knapp

    Robert,

    If you think it “looks like” either one of those things, you might want to schedule a visit with your optometrist.

    The other parties occasionally use censure, usually for ethical issues.

    When they have a problem with one of their legislators voting 180 degrees against what their party stands for, the sanctions include things like party leadership in a legislative house denying the offending legislator preferred committee seats or chairmanships.

    Since the Libertarian Party doesn’t have a large enough caucus in any legislature to hand out or withhold such favors, it only really has two tools at its disposal to keep its officeholders working for, rather than against, the party:

    1) Censure; and

    2) Re-election support. The other parties use that one, too. If you vote against the party line very often, you don’t get money from party re-election committees and the party might even recruit a primary opponent to take you out.

    Censuring this asshat was the right move from a political party standpoint. He was marginal for re-election in any case, he was working against rather than for the party … really the only way for him to be of ANY use to the party was as an example, a way of showing the public that we mean what we say and don’t just get behind any and every yahoo who happens to claim our name.

  71. Andy

    Shivany Lane said: “Sometimes I am glad to live in California where many of these issues are on our ballot and decided by the voters not the politicians. It takes longer to research and to vote but it really is worth it.”

    Nevada also has the citizen’s initiative and referendum process, and there have in fact been initiatives/referendums on the ballot concerning this issue in Nevada within the last few years.

    People who want the government to do something, whether good or bad, will often try going through a legislative body first. If a legislative body fails to do what they want them to do, then they will look to utilizing the citizen’s initiative process (if they are in a place that has an initiative process).

    Since the legislature passed this bill, there was no reason for the stadium proponents to do an initiative on this occasion.

    Will somebody launch a referendum petition to over-turn the stadium bill? This would be an excellent project for the Libertarian Party of Nevada to launch.

    Due to low voter turn out in the 2014 Governor’s election, the petition signature requirements in Nevada dropped significantly. Prior to the 2014 Governor’s, the signature requirement to place a statewide issue on the ballot in Nevada was something like 101,000 valid signatures. This requirement dropped down to 55,000 and something valid signatures.

    The timing would be great for somebody to step up and file a referendum petition to repeal the stadium bill, and the same goes for the other tax increase bill that passed to give more money to the police.

    If Libertarian Party members in Nevada stepped up and filed one, or both, of these referendums, it would be great publicity for the party. It would be good if the LP of Nevada ran a candidate for Governor in 2018, and the Libertarian candidate for Governor was also listed as the proponent of the referendums to repeal the stadium and the more money for the police bills. This would greatly increase the amount of publicity that the Libertarian Party candidate for Governor would get, because each of these referendums would generate lots of publicity, and any time anyone in the media wanted to interview somebody from the referendum campaigns, they’d be interviewing the Libertarian Party candidate for Governor.

    It would be a lot of work to get one, or preferably, both, of these referendums on the ballot, but it would be well worth the effort.

    Libertarian Party of Nevada, are you listening?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *