« Katrina Victims Housed in Virtual Prisons | Main | Welcome to my world. »

July 26, 2006

The Problem with Howard Rich

In recent posts I've pointed out how Howard Rich and Grover Norquist and a very small group of their friends have created a massive network of astroturf organizations through which millions of dollars are being moved to several states in support of TABOR, term limits, and eminent domain initiatives. The response from the right has been typical: what is wrong with people working together to fund political efforts? It is done all the time.

Yes, people do work together to fund political efforts all the time. And nothing is wrong with that. The question is, when a very small number of people use heavy-handed methods to push their own extreme agenda on local communities, preventing local activists from addressing legitimate local issues, and they do it through a smokescreen of fake groups intended to hide their identity and create the appearance that the effort is local, they have crossed the line. Let's take a closer look.

Heavy Handed Tactics

Howard Rich's heavy-handedness has been getting him into trouble since his Libertarian days back in 1982. He left the party, but not his ideology. And now some conservatives are complaining that Rich's heavy-handed tactics, particularly with regards to term limits, are hurting their efforts. Things really came to a head in 1997 and 1998. Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican who disagreed with US Term Limits only on the number of terms, was told, "If you get in our way, we'll mow you down." Don Hodel, president of the Christian Coalition and long-time supporter of term limits, told Rich the Christian Coalition would "openly reject" Rich's irresponsible, ineffective, and irrational approach to term limits.

In one case, a California Republican term limits supporter was actively opposed by US Term Limits and Americans for Limited Terms (both Howard Rich groups), who spent $250,000 in support of the Democrat in the race who was also a term limits opponent. The reason? Tom Bordonaro, who had promised to vote for any term limits bill that crossed his desk, refused to sign a pledge to self-limit his terms to no more than three two-year terms in the House and two six-year terms in the Senate. His aging Democrat opponent, who opposed term limits, could readily sign the pledge because she knew she wouldn't live long enough to break it. A similar attack on a conservative in Illinois also resulted in that candidate's loss.

According to one conservative in Washington, Rich and his group "treat those who disagree with them on tactical matters as apostates." Another says, "They're absolutely inflexible. No good deed goes unpunished." Arne Owens of the Christian Coalition said, "We no longer consider U.S. Term Limits a part of the conservative movement. Nor do most conservative organizations." In fact, it was a disgruntled conservative activist, expressing the same view as Owens, who first brought the Howard Rich story to my attention.

Since 1998, Rich seems to have realized that his tactics will not work with elected representatives, so he is taking his all-or-nothing approach directly to the voters instead.

Creating the Appearance of Grassroots

When you hear "Oregonians in Action" you automatically think "this is a group of Oregonians who have banded together to get something done." Fortunately, in Oregon, that is true, though even this solid group has been taking money from Rich and friends of late. Oregon is probably not the only state with a citizen group that pre-existed the Rich influence only to succumb to it in recent years. But in many other states where Rich-written and Rich-funded ballot initiatives are being put before the voters, the groups were created specifically for this effort and are anything but grassroots.

Several of Rich's groups have clever acronyms. In Arizona, Rich's group is Arizona HOPE (the Arizona Home Owners Protection Effort). In Nevada, Rich's eminent domain effort is called PISTOL (the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land). And his Nevada TABOR group is called TASC (Tax and Spending Control for Nevada). In Nebraska, it's SOS Nebraska (Stop Over Spending Nebraska) and in Michigan it's SOS Michigan (Stop Over Spending Michigan).

Other groups have pulled their names from existing groups. In Idaho, it's Idahoans for Tax Reform. In Oklahoma, the group is called Oklahomans In Action. In Montana, it's Montanans in Action. He also has the Western Nebraska Taxpayers Association. In Missouri, it's Missourians in Charge (even though it's really Rich in charge).

Others just plain sound local. In California, Rich is working with Citizens to Save California. In Maine, it's the Main Freedom Committee. In South Carolina it's South Carolinians for Responsible Government. In Ohio it's Citizens for Tax Repeal. Florida has Hands Off Florida, Minnesota has Let Minnesota Vote!, and Nebraska has Nebraskans for Human Care Committee (a Terry Schiavo inspired initiative).

All of these initiatives are being put forward and funded by non-local Howard Rich. Signatures were all collected by non-local petitioners. The language of the measures was written by non-local Rich-paid individuals (such as Dave Hunnicut, who wrote a number of eminent domain/Measure 37 style initiatives for various states).

Is it any wonder that Rich has also created and funded an astroturf group called "Citizens in Charge" that is designed to get ALL states to adopt initiative and referendum laws? It is the one means available to this extremist, heavy-handed libertarian movement to force its agenda on the country. Elected Representatives work together to fine-tune legislation and ensure it works for the good of all their constituents. Voters, on the other hand, can only give a measure an up or down vote. If you support term limits, you must accept the precise version offered or have no term limits at all. If you want to end eminent domain abuse, you must also accept Measure 37 compensation or forfeit the eminent domain protections. If you want a rainy day fund or some limitations on state spending, you must also accept Rich's extremely strict limits which will eventually cut the budget in half.

It is far too easy for an unscrupulous man with deep pockets and an unpopular extremist agenda to push aside more moderate proposals by preventing those proposals from obtaining adequate funding to compete for a spot on the ballot (this actually occurs), to create astroturf groups that generate the false appearance that local people are responding to a local crisis, and to then convince voters to make an extreme choice that may not be in their best interests. That is what is wrong with the tactics being used by Howard Rich.

Posted by Becky at July 26, 2006 09:51 AM