The following was received at IPR today. Please click on the file to read the rest of the letter.
Amended Final Determination (P0367641xA8AA7)
36 Comments
Comments are closed.
April 30, 2026
Your Premier Source on Third Parties and Independent Candidates Since 2008
The following was received at IPR today. Please click on the file to read the rest of the letter.
Amended Final Determination (P0367641xA8AA7)
Jill Pyeatt is a small-business owner and jewelry designer from Southern California. She currently serves on the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of CA. She can be found on Facebook and Twitter.
Comments are closed.
http://www.lp.org/candidates-14
Ask Ron Nielson.
Who has the names…. A significant chunk of the Libertarian National Committee, though more from last time.
Who has the names of the people allowing Burke to continue to be an asshole? Why is the asshole still associated with the Our America initiative???
Can someone tell me where I can find out what libertarians are running for office in 2014?
I can understand that he has caused you a lot of grief, but that is taking it too far.
Paulie:
“I can understand wishing that he would go away and find something else to do, but wishing cancer on someone is sadistic and sickening.”
.
.Well, you’re misinterpreting this. Never said anything about wishing it on someone. Just said that if I hear that he has it, I’m not going to be all that upset about it. 22 years of vicious shit from a puke does things to good people.
.
B. Tiernan
I can understand wishing that he would go away and find something else to do, but wishing cancer on someone is sadistic and sickening.
“You should’t have. Oh well, you did. But cancer is a horrible thing and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.”
.
Yeah, maybe you’re right. At this point, it wouldn’t matter. He’s already done 22 years worth of damage. What’s a few more?
BT
You should’t have. Oh well, you did. But cancer is a horrible thing and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
Wes:
.
“If Burke was diagnosed with incurable rectal cancer he would try to spin it as a positive development.”
.
B-b-but, that WOULD be a positive development.
.
Hmmmm, should I post this? Let’s see, 3 -2 – 1, BOOM!
Finally the two factions agree on something! Whodathunkit.
Jill: “This was way back in 1994? Richard Burke has been causing trouble all this time? Wow. Just wow.”
.
Yup. Part of his success early on was made possible by the fact that he had a number of serious, long time LPO members giving him the benefit of the doubt and accepting his sincerity in moving the party forward. One of them was later nominated by Burke to be on the LPO Judicial Committee and he accepted the nomination because he was flattered to be asked and thought he was being part of a new era in the LPO. It wasn’t long before he was used by Burke who was ghost-writing JudCom petitions to use as clubs against his opponents. He removed himself from the Judicial Committee after receiving yet another petition which he called “bullshit”. This decent man later told me that despite his earlier view that Burke was going to be good for the party, he had concluded that Burke was “a scoundrel”. He left the party for good.
Yes, this has been going on for a long time. To borrow what one person said about a national figure, I’ll say that for over 20 years Burke has been a hemorrhoid on the anus of the Libertarian Party.
.
B. Tiernan
“Bob was 94 the year Harry Browne spoke at the LPO Portland convention or was it 95?”
.
That was 1995 at the Monarch in Clackamas. For those who weren’t here at the time, we on the good side arranged for an appearance by Harry Browne as a separate event, and Burke (little schmuck that he is) countered this by organizing a boycott of the event – not to be against Browne, but to make sure that we on the good side would be embarrassed by a low turnout.
.
Fortunately the turnout wasn’t bad at all, and included a lone member of the Burke faction (Paul Bonneau) who was ever so slightly more objective than Burke – enough to realize that it was counter-productive and against his own interests to miss the event. Aside from that, Bonneau was too brain-deadened by Burke loyalty to fully recover, and disappeared eventually.
.
B. Tiernan
Bob was 94 the year Harry Browne spoke at the LPO Portland convention or was it 95? I know you are a big supporter of history, like last stands.
Mike Wilson: “Thanks Bob. I have lost my copy of that, which is unfortunate.”
.
I ‘ve just re-read it and was impressed with how many details are in it. There are a number of people who regularly post on these LPO-related messages who come across as being defenders of Burke if only because they think it’s all a personality clash. I hope all of them read the article. And the article deals mainly with Burke’s stupidity and incompetence, and barely touches on his dishonesty and other back-stabbing traits. Those traits, however, are detailed in so many other writings and are in fact clearly hinted at in Dan’s article as being possible reasons for his 1994 performance as campaign manager.
.
B. Tiernan
Wes,
This empire sounds kind of like Fred Sanford’s empire.
Jill
Mostly it is the support of corrupt national operatives that has kept him feeling like he was untouchable or in the case of post 2008 that he can restart his empire.
This was way back in 1994? Richard Burke has been causing trouble all this time? Wow. Just wow.
Thanks Bob. I have lost my copy of that, which is unfortunate. I haven’t seen or heard from Dan for more than a few years and hope he is okay.
While we’re on the subject, for those out there who still think that Dick Burke is some sort of victim, or even a skilled political operative (!), here’s a good article.
.
.
Enjoy,
.B. Tiernan
.
.
The following article appeared in a past issue of the LPO’s official newsletter (when not controlled by Burke and therefore able to publish articles that members needed to see), and shows how a former LPO candidate for governor (in 1994) trusted Burke to be his campaign manager (despite warnings from others).
.
DVP vs RPB
.
by Dan vander Ploeg
.
The newly formed nwlibertarians e-mail discussion group was the scene in recent weeks of yet another battle between Richard Burke and several other party activists. There were lengthy lists of complaints and accusations about Burke’s behavior over the last couple of years, and lengthy rebuttals and counteraccusations from Burke. Most of you are already familiar with this story, either first-hand or from the accounts in Jon Zimmer’s alternative newsletter last year and Burke’s replies in this newsletter. Since our annual convention is fast approaching, and since Burke plans to run for party office again, I feel it is time for me to publish the account of my disenchantment with Richard Burke.
.
CAMPAIGN POSTMORTEM
.
In 1994, I was Libertarian candidate for Governor of the State of Oregon. I asked Richard Burke to serve as my campaign manager. I had at that time accepted his rationalizations for the internal party battles he was perpetually engaged in, and he appeared most focused on campaigning and seemed willing to contribute a level of effort to the campaign far beyond what anyone else could offer. This campaign started with high hopes, but in the end accomplished only its lowest-level goal: we retained ballot status. In a state with 10,000 registered Libertarians, we got only 20,000 votes.
.
In the last week before the election I had a joint press conference with Republican candidate Denny Smith. This press conference was Burke’s big coup–he had been working on it from the start of the campaign, and obviously regarded it as his crowning achievement. Unfortunately, it proved highly embarrassing for me. First, there was the location. Burke says the Smith people chose the venue, which was the Multnomah County Elections office. Not only did the people at the Elections Office not know we were coming, and not only was there no place for a conference, but it would have been highly illegal to hold it there–there was voting going on. They were were gracious and moved us to the garage. Seems like a strange choice of location, unless the Smith people thought I was going to officially withdraw from the race. When the conference finally began, I couldn’t figure out where Smith was going with his remarks. It didn’t jibe with what I had been led to expect by Burke. When my turn came, I gave up on my prepared remarks halfway through–they just didn’t seem to follow and by that time I was pretty upset and the reporters were bored. There was no news here, and they felt cheated. In the Q&A the reporters were quite hostile to Smith. I only got in one good line: when Smith mentioned that he planned to cut taxes, I said that I planned deeper cuts.
.
The Smith people were very upset after the press conference, with Elaine Franklin, Smith’s campaign manager, accusing Burke of a double-cross. When I heard of this I called Elaine Franklin. She told me that Burke had told them I would endorse Smith, and say, “if you won’t vote for me, vote for Smith.” I had made it clear to Burke that I couldn’t do that. Burke claims he didn’t tell them that, and it was all my fault for a) not reading all of the speech I had written and b) upstaging Denny on the issue of taxes. Besides, why believe what Franklin says? My question is why would Franklin agree in the first place? There simply wasn’t enough in it for them unless they really thought I was going to endorse Smith.
.
ARE WE STILL FRIENDS?
.
Burke called me the following Friday night to explain why it was all my fault: I had never followed his instructions during the campaign, I should have trusted him because he knew what he was doing. On the other hand, I should not blame him, because he’s just another volunteer amateur doin’ the best that he can. In addition, we’re on the same side and we’re still friends, aren’t we? This certainly got me to thinking. Here’s the list of Burke’s accomplishments during the campaign:
.
1. He helped collect signatures on the school choice petition, which produced
about $300.
2. He set up a news conference in Salem.
3. He went along on two big debates in Medford and Eugene.
4. He occasionally answered the HQ phone.
5. He claims he sent out numerous press releases. This must have been tricky,
since his fax machine was perpetually out of order.
.
THE MIN– USES
.
On the other hand:
.
1. He apparently engaged in unethical behavior to get the Smith press conference.
2. He wasted hundreds of activist man-hours with his two Judicial Committee
extravaganzas [regarding invalidating a Multnomah County Party nominating
convention as well as removing LPO member Jon Zimmer from the party]. Since
I was on the Judicial Committee, I personally lost about three weeks of critical
campaign time. While Burke’s complaints were technically correct [this is very
debatable – RMT], dealing with them at that time and in that fashion was
counterproductive. Since Burke was also a member of the Judicial Committee, he
had both complaints brought by proxies, concealing his authorship. The
subterfuge was rather transparent to all involved. [RMT: Bylaws banned
StateCom officers from also serving on the JudCom, but Burke, on the StateCom
as Immediate Past Chair, got around this by pointing out that he was not an
officer. Always looking for possible loopholes, this certainly violated at least the
spirit behind that Bylaws provision].
3. I received complaints from people who left messages on the HQ answering
machine and never got an answer. I suffered the embarrassment of showing up
for a speaking engagement which had been cancelled–Burke got the message
to me an hour too late (he did apologize profusely).
4. He produced several iterations of an amateur campaign flyer. When I first saw it,
on my way to a meeting of the Executive Club (a group of Republican activists that
Burke liked to attend), it was flawed to the point of embarrassment. I told him not
to distribute it that night, but he did anyhow. Later editions were somewhat
improved, but never quite right.
5. He arranged for a session with a friend of his who is a professional photographer.
The pictures were terrible, and though my wife did better by shooting a role of
black-and-white 35 mm, it was too late by then to get it in the Voters Pamphlet
and we had to settle for the best of a bad lot.
6. I gave him a few hundred dollars for expenses: telephone, printing, post office
box, stamps, one banner, a couple of photographs, etc. The banner was nice, but
the dunning phone calls when he forgot to pay the bills were annoying, most of
the printing was a waste, the photos were unflattering, he forgot to answer the
phone, and I can’t believe he used an entire roll of stamps. But why complain
about such petty things? Because there are so many!
.
WHAT’S MISSING HERE?
.
In addition to the plusses and minuses, there are the absents:
.
1. He talked of a $10,000 budget, but delivered virtually no money.
2. He made very little contribution to our press coverage: most of what I got found
me directly.
3. There was no recruiting, organization, or supervision of volunteer workers for the
campaign.
4. He published only one issue of the LPO newsletter when he had promised three.
5. He didn’t read his E-mail or check the campaign HQ voice mail regularly.
Fortunately, I did receive help from a small crew of the party faithful, and we all
owe special thanks to Doug Bowler for his generous contribution of time and
effort.
.
As for me, here’s what I did during the campaign:
.
1. Numerous phone interviews. 2. Numerous questionnaires. 3. Several radio
shows. 4. Two major debates sponsored by the League of Women Voters, Eugene
and Medford. 5. Two candidates’ fairs. 6. Three cable TV shows. 7. Personal
interviews with the major newspapers. 8. Three press conferences. 9. Numerous
phone conversations with prospects. 10. Four flyers, for mail response and event
hand-outs. I also wrote the Voter’s Pamphlet statement and drove to Salem to file it,
filed financial statements, filed the conflict of interest statements, etc., etc. In sum,
virtually every spare moment I had for five months. I’m proud to say that my
marriage survived the experience.
.
So when I looked back on this history after the phone conversation with Burke following the Denny Smith news-conference fiasco, I had to say well, perhaps we were on the same side, but in retrospect I would have been better off without a “campaign manager.” I think we did remarkably well to pull even a lowly 2%. The party came all too close to losing ballot status.
.
SO WHAT’S THE EXPLANATION?
.
Are we on the same side? I know of no evidence to prove that the dissension, acrimony, and wheel-spinning that follows Burke around in the Party is the result of malice on his part. There are other possible explanations besides his being a Republican plant or an FBI agent. For one thing, by his own admission Burke delights in the “game of politics.” He loves pressing the flesh, the intrigues, the back-room deals. This is foreign to the attitude of most old-time party activists, and coupled with Burke’s social ineptness could easily result in alienation of those activists. His failures to handle the mundane details such as checking for messages can easily be explained as basic carelessness and lack of interest–some people just
aren’t good with tending to detail, or in a word, they’re undependable. Perhaps he promised too much because of youth and inexperience, and when he had to go sell cars to keep himself afloat financially during the campaign he just didn’t have any more spare time for unreimbursed politics.
.
Whatever his motivations, whatever his reasons, what is certain is that Richard Burke is bad for the party. For instance, I’m wasting time writing this article instead of doing something productive. Many other activists are also similarly distracted. And while Burke makes extravagant claims of accomplishment, I’ve learned to distrust his figures; for example, I attended a meeting of his “Greater Portland” chapter which I believe he reported as attended by 14, but didn’t mention that 11 of those 14 were invited speakers and their associates. When Burke let drop in a conversation with me that he planned to run for director-at-large this year, while at the same time he was reassuring his opponents that they could relax
since he wasn’t running for chair, I knew the saga was not over. I sent Burke the following message:
.
HERE’S THE DEAL
.
Okay Richard, here’s the deal: if you want my respect and trust, you’ll have to earn it. There are two steps: 1. Stay out of LPO affairs for at least one year. This is the easy one. No running for party office, no attending state committee meetings, no more parliamentary/judicial circuses that serve only to sap the strength of our people. This would demonstrate that you care about the welfare of the party. If you have a legitimate need to have dealings with the LPO, you can do it through a proxy; you’ve certainly demonstrated that you know how to do that.
.
The next requirement is a bit harder: 2. Demonstrate dependability, integrity, and caring as you pursue independent Libertarian political action. A few mundane examples: no more cost overruns, all phone and mail messages answered, no more irate people left in your wake, all promises kept, no more misdirection even when it’s for a worthy goal.
.
There is certainly lots of room for action by independent libertarian-led PACs, and running candidates for non-partisan office doesn’t even require nomination by the Party. Proceed, please, to demonstrate the superiority of your strategic vision by succeeding in the electoral marketplace–bringing in activists, converting Republicans, and training, supporting, and ultimately electing Libertarians, preferably to partisan office. Earn our admiration for your dedication to liberty.
.
Obviously you don’t need to contend for control of the LPO if your goal is to further the progress of our society towards liberty–you can proceed directly on your own. Why should you dissipate your own energies battling with that group of activists who presently make up the majority of the party, when you claim that your strategies will far outstrip their efforts? Just gather 200 loyal followers to your banner and you can easily become the Libertarian Party, as you well know. Let those you consider to be of the supper-club mentality continue their slow progress without hindrance, and simply add their numbers to your ranks when you supplant them as the torch-bearer of Liberty.
.
Don’t bother to try to rationalize or evade; I’m not interested. I want action, not words. There is simply no excuse for squabbling: if the reports you received were accurate and the implication correct that the people you’ve alienated have put together a 2/3 majority for the convention, you might as well retire gracefully and pursue other goals. If, on the other hand, you have recruited a majority, we can just take our “supper-club” elsewhere. Why do you devote time fighting with these people, and serving as the target for their hostility? You’ve lost hundreds of hours, and they have lost thousands. Perhaps that makes you the winner on points, but Liberty was the loser.
.
DID IT WORK?
.
In his lengthy response, Burke denied any need for my trust and respect, and asked only that I stop attacking him publicly.
.
Well there you have it folks. I’ve just wasted several hours of a beautiful sunny day writing about Richard Burke. This person is a gigantic time-sink, which I think we can ill afford. This has already gone on much too long, but, since Libertarians are notoriously tolerant, we have a hard time defending ourselves from this kind of attack. I hope you will all show up at our annual convention, and help give a clear direction to the future of the Party–we have no time to lose.
.
DVP
Dick P’rick Burke (aka Richard Patrick Burke):
“We will, of course, comply with the SOS directive.”
.
.
*Chuckle* . Not “will”, but MUST.
.
B. Tiernan
Mark Axinn
No. A political party is not a political action committee … it is different and involves ballot access.
If Burke was diagnosed with incurable rectal cancer he would try to spin it as a positive development.
To file as a Political Party in Oregon, you will need to attach tens of thousands of signatures to your application.
Reeves has been ordered to file as a misc. Political PAC, a type of entity that would for or against a candidate, Political Party, or ballot measure. These sort of organizations typically all themselves “citizens for _________” or “citizens against ___________”. Whatever Reeves ends up calling his PAC will have to be approved by the Oregon Secretary of State.
I also see this as a “positive development” as well.
Richard–
Is it possible under Oregon law to be both a PAC and a political party?
I see this as a positive development. We will, of course, comply with the SOS directive.
Richard P. Burke
Oregon
The Burke/Reeves gang needs a new name? I suggest “LINOPAC.”
But now, it appears, there will be a filing, meaning that we will find out how much money the LNC dropped into this campaign, and where money has come from.
Just like the Life of Brian: Oregon Libertarian Party! We’re the Libertarian Party of Oregon! Oregon Libertarian Party. Listen, the only people we hate worse than the Republicans is the F****** Oregon Libertarian Party. Splitters!
Pity there are no penalties–they deserve them along with every other piece of bad news they keep getting…
The TL;DR version of the letter, for the non-lawyers:
There was a complaint regarding Reeves raising money with the LPO name, but not giving it to the LPO. On review, the state decided that was not a violation, since Reeves was clearly raising money to sue the LPO. However, raising money to support or oppose a political party requires someone to register with the state under Oregon’s campaign finance laws. Reeves now has to do that, but the filings won’t be penalized for being late, since he just got notified through his attorney. It also sounds like campaign finance laws could have been avoided entirely if all solicitations had just been to pay the attorney directly, since legal defense funds are exempt under Oregon campaign finance laws.
“LPO No!” has a nice ring to it.
“Fuh Coup Wagner” has a certain bluntness.
Perhaps “Roberts Rules, Wagner Drools” would appeal to the parliamentarians.
“Oregonians (and some non-Oregonians) United to Keep the Libertarian Party Small and Dues-Paying” is probably too long.
“Anyone care to toss out a few ideas?”
L P Faux?
@Steven Wilson
Mr. Reeves/Burke will have to file a PAC titled other than the “Libertarian Party of Oregon”
State Law gives Political parties exclusive rights to their name
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/248.010
I am sure they would be open for suggestions as to what to call their Misc. Political Action Committee.
Anyone care to toss out a few ideas?
Steve,
Same as it always was from the beginning, the actual LPO.
Then who gets to use the LPO or Libertarian Party title?