Libertarian Party of Florida leader attacks Campaign for Liberty; accuses it of violations

Dana Moxley-Cummings

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Campaign for Liberty & SOE’s
From: Dana Moxley-Cummings Date: Sat, October 12, 2013 4:34 pm
Dear Committee,

I have always been heavily in favor of members of the LPF getting involved with other organizations in the community to advance our mission, and to make contacts with potential, future LPF members.

Until earlier this year, Campaign for Liberty (C4L), was believed by me to be a non-partisan, organization whose mission was similarly aligned with that of ours. To promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of education, issue advocacy, and grassroots mobilization. C4L is also designated as a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, which legally restricts them from showing favor to one political party over another.
There have been quite a few instances in which C4L has shown an overwhelming favoritism to the GOP, the GOP agenda and GOP candidates. Most recently, at an event in Orange County, after allowing speakers representing the Republican Party time to address the crowd, and informing the crowd of the dates of REC and DEC meetings, organizer Scott Oliver blatantly refused equal speaking time to our Vice Chair, Alex Snitker who was requesting such.

LPF Treasurer, Danielle Alexandre was also in attendance and together, Alex and Danielle even reminded Mr. Oliver of his obligation to let a representative of the LPF speak, which only triggered an escalating aggressive response from Mr. Oliver, who continued to deny them such time. The Libertarian Party of Florida faces an enormous amount of resistance with mainstream media propping up and supporting the political duopoly. We stand up for ourselves when bullied by the media, we stand up for ourselves when bullied by the Division of Elections, and we must stand up for ourselves when bullied by these organizations.

The attached letter I plan to print and snail mail (self-funded) to the listed recipients. It currently states that the letter is a “notice from the Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida”, and explains that C4L has been acting in violation of the law, and simply requests that they start following it. If the majority of this Committee is without objection, I would like to send the letter on behalf of the LPF Executive Committee as a whole, which would make a much bolder statement. I will still self-fund the mailing regardless. Please let me know if there is an objection, as I plan to send this out on Monday.

Regarding the 68 letters we will be sending to each county SOE and the DOE; I have been researching voter fraud laws and election laws in preparation for the letter. I also have spoken to a few SOEs this week to get an idea of what exactly seems to be the problem. Unfortunately, the problems are all allegedly caused by different “mistakes”. Which has made drafting a uniform letter a bit more difficult. I should have a draft of this letter available for review next week. Please keep me informed of any new information arising from this issue.

Hope you all have a great weekend!

In Liberty,
Dana Moxley Cummings, chairman
Libertarian Party of Florida

1334 Tampa Road, Suite 2
Palm Harbor, Florida 34683
813-438-5547
855-FLA-FREE (855-352-3733)
Website: www.lpf.org
Email: chair@lpf.org

The full letter below:

C4L

36 thoughts on “Libertarian Party of Florida leader attacks Campaign for Liberty; accuses it of violations

  1. paulie

    Overall a pretty good letter but…

    “There has been repeated and continuing bias towards the Libertarian Party of Florida/Libertarian Party and has shown deliberate favor to the Republican Party
    of Florida/Republican Party.”

    This sentence needs a little help.

    Perhaps “There has been repeated and continuing bias against the Libertarian Party of Florida/Libertarian Party and deliberate favor shown to the Republican Party
    of Florida/Republican Party.”

  2. Joe Wendt

    This is stupid. Campaign for Liberty is entitled to chose who is allowed to speak, they are a private organization. I think it’s rude for Snitker to demand speaking time when he did not make arrangements ahead of time (@ least that’s the impression I got from the letter). This is going to make enemies for the LP in Florida within the Liberty Movement, and will turn off a lot of libertarian Republicans from being involved in the LP.

  3. Gene Trosper

    Just when you think the LP is doing some good, they pull a boneheaded move like this.

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    I’d like to suggest that Dana have someone edit her letter for her before she sends it.

  5. Stewart Flood

    Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4, not a 501(c)3. As such, they are permitted to be involved in partisan politics and to even support a specific candidate over another, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare. Any money donated to or used for a particular candidate is considered taxable, however they are not required to disclose their donors.

    Edit the letter? Throw it in the trash. Sending it could easily put the LPF and its officers right in the path of a libel suit.

  6. paulie

    Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4, not a 501(c)3. As such, they are permitted to be involved in partisan politics and to even support a specific candidate over another, as long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare. Any money donated to or used for a particular candidate is considered taxable, however they are not required to disclose their donors.

    That changes things quite a bit. In light of that I would agree with Wendt and Trosper. If they are a c4 and c4s are allowed to endorse candidates then the complaint has no basis.

  7. Matt Cholko

    Regardless of C4L’s tax status, it doesn’t seem very libertarian of the LPF to go around demanding things from private organizations and threatening to send the government after them if they don’t give in. And yes, I know it doesn’t say that they’re gonna go to government, but it is certainly implied. What a bunch of crap.

  8. Stewart Flood

    When you are playing with fire you have to know how to handle matches without getting burned. The LPF has inexperienced leadership and joins the ranks of other state affiliates who have in the past — and in some cases in the present — shown poor judgement. This is in part the fault of the delegates to the convention that elected the current leadership. The rest of the fault is in those who have acted rashly, making their state party look foolish and unmanaged.

    Was that politically correct enough? Short summary: bunch of bozos in charge down there.

  9. Joe Wendt

    It’s not the fault of the delegates for electing these people. Wyllie endorsed the the current Chair (who joined the LP in Aug 2012). He endorsed this over a two time LPF Vice Chair. Then the other candidate was suspended from the EC due to him privately investigating an allegation. These people tainted the voting pool.

    I hate it when people act stupid in the name of the party.

  10. Stewart Flood

    What was her experience? Her resume in management of political organizations? Had she served on an executive committee anywhere in the LP? (Don’t count Republicans or Democrats since their executive committees are usually just sheep sitting in the audience watching the officers do their monthly dance on the head of a pin)

    So…how do I really teen? I feel that…I feel that…ummm…bunch of bozos in charge a LOT of places!!! πŸ™‚

  11. Jill Pyeatt

    Pssst, Stewart, in spite of the fact that your rant over writing “teen” instead of “feel” was highly entertaining—you have the opportunity to edit your comments now on IPR.

  12. Stewart Flood

    I do? How? And how does it keep someone from editing another person’s comments to make them look bad, or worse than they made themselves look?

  13. paulie

    I’m not sure if that works unless you are logged in. Jill, have you tried logging out and seeing if that is still possible to do that way? I only see the edit link when I am logged in.

  14. John Wayne Smith

    A little side story about the Libertarian Party of Florida.

    Alexander Snitker told me in 2010, the day he was given $10,000.00 by the LPF Ex-com so that he could file to run for the US Senate, that he would steal the LPF and run it his way. He did and he is. How is it working out Alex.

  15. paulie

    It appears that you can’t register for a new account.

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-login.php?action=register

    I wonder if someone who has an account from back when you could, but is not an IPR writer, would try testing out and see if they can edit their comments now. I would be curious to see if that works. If you don’t remember your old password that does not matter, there is a forgot password link below the login. The login is at the bottom of the right column under meta, or

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-login.php

  16. paulie

    Alexander Snitker told me in 2010, the day he was given $10,000.00 by the LPF Ex-com so that he could file to run for the US Senate, that he would steal the LPF and run it his way.

    He used the word steal?

  17. Jill Pyeatt

    Oh, I was wrong! I guess you have to be logged in, which we writers can do, to be able to edit. Sorry.

    I’ll try to never make anyother mistake *hangs head in embarrassment*.

  18. paulie

    Well, actually, not just writers can log in. Although it seems that new accounts can’t be set up. But there are several thousand existing accounts, because you used to have to set one up to be able to comment back in 2008. However we did away with mandatory comment registration at the start of 2009..

  19. From Der Sidelines

    Frankly, the C4L, just like its S4L siblings, and just like the Tea Party, has been co-opted and taken over by establishment Republicans that are not worthy of the group names. The LPFL and every other LP affiliate is best served by leaving them alone or pointing out their hypocrisy, but otherwise not engaging them, since they are already well on their way to being nothing more than GOP shills.

  20. paulie

    There are some tendencies in that direction, but overall the C4L groups have more people that are still in our ballpark and not all of them are married to the NSGOP although too many are. Even some (note some) Tea Parties still have a lot of people that we could work with and win over. And, unfortunately too few Libertarians recognize that Occupiers have many people we could win over as well.

  21. John Wayne Smith

    Paulie: No he die not use the singular word “steal”. What he did was to ask the question “What would it take to take over the LPF.
    Being an honest man I described it to him in detail.

    It would take only 40 voting delegates to take over. He could have 40 of his Republican supporters to change their registeration at least 60 days before the convention and make sure that they showed up for the convention. He did and they did and he was able to get Mr. Wyllie elected chair.

    It has been downhill since. At the convention his delegates who had not paid for the different food events ate almost all the food provided by the hotel and did not leave any for those who had paid. The convention organizer had to pay the hotel hundereds of dollers extra because of this.
    Since then that crowd has broken almost every election law in Florida and has almost wiped out the $45,000.00 reserve we had and made the Libertarian Party of Florida look like a bunch of fools.

    It is my fault because I tought him how to do it

  22. Stewart Flood

    Unfortunately, JWS’ interpretation of events is reasonably accurate. I had a lot of the background of what was going on before attending the 2012 convention, where I observed some of the events that took place. I was put in the middle of a situation over the presidential candidate debate that should not have even occurred, but happened simply because the chair wanted to look good to the media.

  23. Dana Moxley Cummings

    Oh what an interesting reality some choose to live in….

    For the record. I am not sure where this copy of this letter came from but it was far from the final draft. I can’t even say for sure if this was ever a draft from me at all.

    The actual letter was not a letter threatening any type of action (other than perhaps LPF members’ un-involvement in certain C4L chapters. I am not even a member of C4L (for some of the reasons stated above), however, I do work closely with many people who are currently active in C4L as well as some founders of certain chapters. The letter was a request to follow their own rules regarding equal time that have been used against the LPF MANY times.

    As for this statement from Joe Wendt:

    “It’s not the fault of the delegates for electing these people. Wyllie endorsed the the current Chair (who joined the LP in Aug 2012). He endorsed this over a two time LPF Vice Chair. Then the other candidate was suspended from the EC due to him privately investigating an allegation. These people tainted the voting pool.

    I hate it when people act stupid in the name of the party.”

    Between being entirely wrong and not making sense… I’m pretty sure I actually agree with his last statement wholeheartedly!

    Good grief people!

  24. paulie

    JWS

    I suppose that could be interpreted as steal, but the question could also be interpreted as: what it would take to assume the leadership, which is a very different spin on it and much more legitimate. It depends on what angle you view it from.

  25. John Wayne Smith

    Paulie – I was there. A person who had only been with the libertarian a year and would not put Libertarian in his advertizing. Give me a break I was there.

    It is the same thing that is happening with Wyllie. A Thief who could not exteblish anything on their own, who is misrepresenting what the LP stands for If that is the kind of Libertarian party you want I will go start another one.

  26. paulie

    I’m just trying to give everyone their due. It is possible that someone could be new to the LP, be interested in what it would take to become the new leadership and bring a fresh approach, ask what it would take and focus on faces more than on the brand per se, and do all that with good intentions and sound libertarian principles. I am not saying that this is the case here, only that it is plausible. I am not commenting on whether you are right or wrong, only that the actual evidence you have presented so far can be interpreted in more than one way. Please don’t read more into my comments than what is there. I always try to give everyone their due.

Leave a Reply

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