Romney's "RNC Power Grab": What Really Happened

Determined to neuter the grassroots and head off future insurgencies like those of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul, Republican party bosses have pulled off an audacious coup, high-handedly turning the GOP into a much more top-down, centralized party.

Yesterday, the Republican National Committee in Tampa adopted some rules changes that shift power from the state parties and the grassroots to the RNC and the GOP presidential nominee. Former Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire touted the new rules as providing “a strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years. But in fact the new rules should be very troubling and disappointing to conservative grassroots activists, because they move the national Republican Party away from being a decentralized, bottom-up party toward becoming a centralized, top-down party.

The Romney rules effectively disenfranchise grassroots delegates, and will thus tend to weaken and splinter the party over time. They specifically represent a blow to the Tea Party and the Ron Paul insurgency -- to "the Republican wing of the Republican party" -- to citizens who are strongly committed to economic freedom, fiscal common sense, and smaller, constitutionally limited government -- and who want to have a voice in the Grand Old Party. The new rules force these grassroots conservatives to reconsider their future within the GOP.

Party sage and long-time RNC member (and conservative activist) Morton Blackwell led a last-minute effort to stop the changes -- an effort FreedomWorks strongly supported, together with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Phyllis Schlafly and RNC for Life also got involved, while Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh helped sound the alarm.

But the Romney camp and RNC insiders won the day, successfully imposing their will with the help of their control of the gavels, superior knowledge of the process, and perhaps some dirty tricks. The conservative “rebels” won the moral victory, however, taking their fight to the Rules Committee and the full Convention floor and arguably winning the voice vote there to stop the rules, only to be gaveled down by Speaker John Boehner [view video from 1:08 minutes].

Yesterday’s fight offers a sobering glimpse of what life will be like for conservatives in a Romney Administration. It proves once again that sometimes we have to beat the Republicans before we can beat the Democrats.

Last Friday, August 24th, longtime GOP lawyer and Romney advisor Ben Ginsberg surprised Rules Committee members by proposing three basic changes clearly intended to head off a conservative challenge to President Romney and/or tamp down the Tea Party and Ron Paul movements in 2016.

1. Amend existing Rule 12 to hand members of the Republican National Committee, for the first time, the power to change the party's rules on the fly between national conventions. (National conventions only take place during presidential election years.) Three-fourths of RNC members must approve a proposed change for it to take effect. Note: This new rule is protected; it cannot be amended or repealed by the RNC.

Comment: This is unprecedented. It would enable top GOP officials to circumvent rules adopted by state and grassroots leaders at the National Convention. One can imagine how it might be used to shape and control the delegate-selection process to the advantage of insiders and special interests.

2. Amend existing Rule 15 to allow the presumptive presidential nominee to “disavow” duly elected delegates and force state parties to hold new elections to replace any delegate or alternate deemed unacceptable by the presumptive presidential nominee.

Comment: One can imagine the influence this change would give a presumptive nominee over any delegate that doesn’t toe the line. He could, in effect, choose the people who are to choose him. It’s not hard to imagine the temptation a campaign would feel to use this power to intimidate delegates and to reward friends, supporters, and campaign contributors. The proposal also contained a provision altering the method of allocating delegates, in order to front-load and shorten the primary calendar.

Unfortunately, the proposed change to Rule 12 passed. Thankfully, the proposed changes to Rule 15 were stopped. But a version of the “disavowal” provision did pass, touted by the insiders as a "compromise." But it's not acceptable.

Under this “compromise,” a new Rule 16 was added to stop an alleged “faithless elector” problem -- delegates who run claiming to support one candidate but then vote for another at the Convention. The new Rule 16 requires that a delegate who attempts to violate his binding pledge to a candidate under state law or state party rules shall be deemed to have resigned and the Secretary of the Convention must record the improper vote as it should have been cast based on state law or party rule. This compromise was supported by conservative stalwart James Bopp, as well as Ron Kaufman and Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Blackwell opposed the compromise because it retained the Rule 12 change.

As long as the RNC can change the rules between conventions, the proposed changes to Rule 15 that we managed to stop could easily be revived at any time, without a vote at a National Convention. Since the RNC usually follows the lead of its Chairman, and the Chairman has powerful incentives to go along with an incumbent Republican President, it should be easy for Team Romney to change the party rules pretty much any time at their pleasure. This should trouble every Republican.

At a minimum, the effect of the new rules will be to empower insiders over the broad party electorate and to discourage grassroots activists from taking part in the process. The new rules will thus have a chilling effect on intra-party debate, including debate over the National Platform and, of course, on future rules changes. The “Inner Circle” has scored quite a coup.

After Ginsberg’s proposed changes were presented in the RNC Rules Committee, Blackwell circulated a letter denouncing them and vowing to resist them by means of “minority reports,” which can be offered for votes on the Convention floor and, if adopted, would have the effect of defeating the proposed changes.

Over the next four days, we worked feverishly to kill the rule changes, sending out a national call to action and urging our activists to lobby the party chairs and Rules Committee members from their state about the issue. We lit up Facebook and Twitter (using the hashtag #RNCpowergrab) and burned up phone lines with hundreds of calls. We filled up people’s voicemail inboxes. We caused an avalanche of emails. We irritated the heck out of some people. But the pressure had a decisive effect. Negotiations began on the so-called “insiders’ compromise.”

We knew we were fighting an uphill battle. Blackwell laid the groundwork for a floor fight by obtaining more than the requisite number of signers on each of the two minority reports. (Twenty-eight signatures are required.)

As the Rules Committee meeting neared, Team Romney went into high gear, working hard to peel signers off the minority reports.

When the committee finally met, Blackwell was absent, and we have conflicting reports about whether he still had the requisite number of co-signers. One report suggests he did, but that the committee basically disregarded the minority reports because he was not there to defend them.

Why was Blackwell absent? This was out of character for the veteran, battle-scarred activist. Did the insiders pull a Nixonian trick to make sure the leader of the opposition wasn’t present during the crucial meeting? Here’s how CNN explained his absence:

… [S]ome [rules] committee members suggested meddling was at play. A bus full of Virginia delegates arrived at the committee meeting -- after it had adjourned.

“The bus that was supposed to pick up the Virginia delegation arrived an hour later than it was supposed to,” explained Virginia delegate Morton Blackwell, a prime opponent of Rule 16 [a.k.a. the insiders’ compromise on delegate “disavowal”].

Blackwell continued: “And then when we went downtown, we went around the same series of blocks repeatedly – twice. And then the bus took out away from downtown, went about a mile and a half, and then did a u-turn and came back. And did another circuit, of the same place where we had been before.”

And at that point, the Virginia delegates demanded, “‘Stop the bus. And we're going to walk.' And we did.”

“They pushed us around for 45 minutes and then we missed the meeting,” Rothfeld said. “We were in the security perimeter, they pushed us out of it three separate times. They moved us around until the meeting was adjourned.”

Neither she nor the others recalling the story would say who they were directing their anger at. And none could provide proof to back up their claims.

1. Florida activist Laura Noble informed us that both of Florida's Rules Committee members, Peter Feaman and Kathleen King, were removed from the Rules Committee and replaced with Romney-appointed delegates.

2. Some Rules Committee members were physically barred from entering the room, despite having proper credentials.

3. Some delegates were told that Blackwell was trying to use the situation as an excuse to reopen a settled debate that he had lost four years ago regarding Rule 12. Not true.

4. Some delegates were told Romney personally knew nothing of the matter and it was just his overly aggressive lawyers acting beyond their authority and there was nothing to worry about, he would put a stop to it once he found out what was happening.

5. Some delegates seem to have believed that the rules fight was really just a proxy fight in the larger battle being waged between the Romney and Ron Paul camps over who would represent certain states on the convention floor. This assumption may have discouraged some Rules Committee members from supporting the minority reports.

Governor Sununu chaired the meeting. Governor Barbour strongly urged “unity” and the need for everyone to set aside “differences” to “defeat Barack Obama.”

The rules package, containing the insider’s compromise, passed by a decisive vote of 78 to 14. Unfortunately, the Rule 12 change (permitting the RNC to change the rules between conventions) remained in the package, unaltered. Which, of course, means that the Rule 15 change (giving the presumptive nominee the ability to hire and fire delegates based on their perceived loyalty) can be imposed later, without a vote.

The package then went immediately to the full Convention for approval. On the convention floor, Governor Sununu offered it as a “strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years, and with no debate or even mention of the controversy over Rule 12, Speaker Boehner then called for the ayes and noes. The crowd roared loudly, on both sides of the question. Despite the “noes” being (in this hearer’s estimate) louder than the “ayes,” Boehner hastily gaveled the matter closed, declaring: "In the opinion of the Chair, the 'ayes' have it, and the resolution is adopted."

Apparently, someone at RNC was able to predict the future, because this sentence had been helpfully written out for him in advance, and included in his teleprompter script:

Boehner's scripted announcement provoked cries from the crowd of "No!", "Boo!", "Roll call!" and "Division of the house!" [view video starting at 1:08 minutes]. But the microphones had been turned off. Boehner pretended not to hear.

Had we been able to force a roll-call vote, it would have delayed the day’s proceedings by several hours, which would have created an embarrassing logistical foul-up for Team Romney on the Convention’s first night. With the prime-time coverage and big evening speeches scheduled to begin fairly soon, our leverage would have been significant. Team Romney would have been forced to commence immediate negotiations right there on the convention floor, desperate to get their show back on track. But having foreseen the possibility of dissent, they planned to be, at the critical moment, conveniently deaf.

Soon after the disappointing outcome, FreedomWorks released the following statement from Matt Kibbe:

I believe that the Republican party has made a huge mistake by effectively disenfranchising grassroots activists who want to be a part of the party process. If the party sincerely wants the support of citizens, shutting them out of the process is not the way to do it. Sooner rather than later the Republican establishment needs to come to terms with the decentralized nature of grassroots organization circa 2012. The terms of engagement can no longer be dictated from the top-down.

The new rules strongly suggest the insiders don’t think they need the grassroots to win in 2012 -- an astounding assumption, given the critical role grassroots voters played in the historic 2010 wave election.

Despite this setback, we’re proud to have come so close to victory on such short notice and while operating under such severe disadvantages, relative to the insiders. This episode confirms just how powerful grassroots action can be in today’s world -- and we hope the party insiders are taking note of this fact.

We expect Democrats to be top-down and high-handed -- centralization of power is their governing principle, after all. But coming from Republicans, high-handedness is deeply disappointing. Republican rhetoric has always emphasized decentralization and local control -- making policy from the bottom up. And until yesterday, the GOP was in fact a mostly bottom-up party. No longer.

This isn't merely "inside baseball." If the new RNC rules had been in place forty years ago, the establishment might have been able to shut down the Reagan insurgency in 1976. Reagan might not have been able to secure the nomination in 1980.

Perhaps we should not be surprised by this turn of events? Perhaps the centralization of power in the political parties is simply a logical development in the present era -- a “progressive” era, when all institutions, under the pressure of an unlimited, centralized government, tend over time to reflect and become servants of that government?

Perhaps. But whenever an "Inner Circle" exploits its constituents' trust to entrench itself in power, we believe the appropriate recourse is always the same: expose the treachery and keep fighting. Find ways to break down the castle walls. Drive the despots out.

This develoment confirms our thesis that the reclaiming of Washington, D.C., by the American people requires siege warfare -- or, in the corporate parlance of our time, a “hostile takeover." The failed, entrenched "managers" of our nation -- including the powerful insiders who run the political parties -- will not let themselves be replaced without a fight.

1) Beginning today, the GOP will be much less representative of state parties and voters -- and much more representative of whichever interests are smart and powerful enough to dominate the RNC.

2) The conservative grassroots will now have to add “Monitoring the RNC” to their “eternal vigilance” list.

1) We should work to make sure the RNC doesn't actually change the rules on the fly. One

2) begin working from the bottom up to take the Republican party back from the centralizers.

Of course, between now and November 6th, we must focus on the elections. We must fire Barack Obama and elect a new wave of true fiscal and constitutional conservatives to the U.S. Senate to reinforce allies like Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.

But let's face it. The conservative grassroots must also decide whether and to what extent they want to remain engaged in a Republican Party whose establishment clearly does not want their input.

Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks' Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy

Part of the problem is that the party works top down in most states anyway, it certainly does in Mississippi, the stae convention was scripted and committes such as nominating and rules were set and it was practically impossible to get anything they didn’t want in. The same applied to the nominating committee and the slates for convention delegates and executive committe members were closed. Our hope is to start at the county level where we have made some progress. These rule changes will now take power from the state GOP and give it to the RNC and to the presidential candidates, the problem with this is that they can now load the primaries with winner take all and non Conservative states guranteeing a big earl lead in the nomination process for the RINO candidates that will cause money and enthusiasm to dry up for Conservative candidates.
This will also make it more difficult to work our way from the county to the state level because the state party will be even more controlled by the RNC. I contacted our two rules committe delegates and one responded he cwould do what he thought was the right thing to do. I believe he did not support the minority position, I know he supported the “compromise”.

Thanks for the well done summary of what happened.

Personally, I think it was partly aimed at Ron Paul, but mostly at the Tea Party. The GOPe is not afraid of Ron Paul, but they are terrified of the Tea Party.

However, now is not the time for a Republican civil war. I’m not sure we could survive four more years of Obama.

Once this election is over it will be time to reassess the situation. Until then, my money is going partly to the NRA, partly to local Tea Party type candidates, and mostly to SarahPAC.

I am not for Ron Paul, but equally not a fan of the GOPe. I guess you have to pick you battles these days. I am 100% against the left and Obama. But I am no fan of the Rinos. It’s become a minefield.

I just know that what the GOPe did also hurt conservatives and that is what they wanted.
If it had been a true conservative candidate and they had delegates at the convention and were challenging Romney or whoever they wanted then the same thing would have been done.

You do get Santorum won plenty of Republican and Conservative leaning states and it did not do a thing to help him win the nomination. But Romney won all the Progressive Liberal states and he won the nomination. Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin are purple states which Romney won despite recent gains by Republicans. And Arizona is becoming more and more rino despite recent conservative gains and the immigration stances of Governor Jan Brewer. So that state is not really conservative. And Utah and Nevada is Mormon country. So they don’t count wither. And after the Wisconsin and Pennsylvania primaries the rest of the primaries that were falsely had just to get Romney to the magic number; don’t count. Romney was way ahead and the other candidates ended up dropping out.

Beginning immediately following this election, assuming a Romney win, if the Republic is to be maintained, a new conservative party MUST form in time for the next election, hoping that parties are still relevant then. Without a new party the best we can hope for is a protracted continuation of the Depression and more creeping socialism. Should the kenyan win, of course, it is all gone and European style socialism will prove a fleeting stage on the way to full blown Utopian Socialism and all the ramifications that history shows ineluctably ensue..

It’s a question of “proper delegates” . The Paulers were very open about their plans to disrupt the convention. There were posts all over the internet and even a couple of law suits over the delegates and their plans. (some states had already changed some their rules because of the Paulers, the problem isn’t new)

The talk on the internet was about finding enough delegates from a single state to cause a problem. They tried Colorado first, then WA state and Wisconsin, but finally had to settle for Maine, where the most wishy washy Republicans in the country reside (just look at Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins).

The plan was not to win anything, but to just cause trouble and hurt Mitt Romney. The rule change may have been draconian, but it is the fault of the Paulers. The behavior of the Paulers on the floor of the convention the first night was despicable, also. I saw one young girl, sitting conspicuously on the end of an aisle, trying to look bored, but almost breaking into a smile when the camera picked her up. They were walking around, getting up, going out in the aisles and back again during the speeches, trying to be a distracting as possible. I think that security should have told them to leave the floor if they got up out of their seats, until the speech was over, and not let anyone back on the floor while there was someone speaking.

There is no question in my mind that Romney is a political animal that knows how to organize and orchestrate to get things done. Perhaps he really is the shrewdest candidate, able to push that Marxist out of the White House. Romney couldn’t be much worse than Obama, so I guess he is tolerable for now. After the election, conservatives need to figure how to regain control of the Republican party, because a third party would split the vote and guarantee the Democrats win.

I totally agree... but this comment caught my eye:

Lesson #1) NEVER run multiple conservatives against ONE Republican Establishment candidate and expect to have enough votes among the split votes to overcome and ultimately defeat the RINO.

Look at the last few elections... HOW many did Dems run... How many did we run.. It is a 'set-up' from the get go. They (who?!) want to make this easy for them.. Is there any way to repay the 'favor'.. Imagine if THEY had 10 to choose from... (well, 2008 was a weird election.. by popularity, Hitlery should have had it, but didn't get it.. and because of that, many of them came to our side...)..

I personally feel it is a complicated issue (we all know that).. but even if it wasn't 25% as complicated, the general public only watches ABCBSPMSCNNRPN(etc..).. They have NO idea (not care, as long as they get welfare, or whatever))).. They don't feel it as much as we workers do... and when they start to feel the pain, what do they say?! "TAX MORE", so they can take it easy again. :(

I am honestly (if I have to go back to the states before this crap if fixed) thinking about trying to go on welfare myself.. I am SO tired of paying (yes, I even have to pay taxes out of country) for those lazy bastards... SO tired of it :(

I wish I could remember the TRUE story of a high school teacher that did this experiment (socialism) and it turned out better (or worse, depending on who/how you look at it).. (as an experiment/point to the students) than he ever imagined/expected... I think it was around 1976 or so.

ALSO.. a couple of years ago, a conservative citizen journalist went around a campus asking the students about their opinion on taxes... 90+% of students said they were all for it... until they were asked to pay for what THEY owe (per person) for the debt..

These people (I would say kids... but the DEMS teaching these younger kids (35 or younger) are not kids.. and they know EXACTLY what they are doing. It has been implanted here (since I think around 1926 or so) by the communists trying to destroy the freedoms that made USA what it is (or was) :\

ok.. going to shut up... I am preaching to the choir... but I almost never speak up.. just make pics... and this has been building up for years with me saying almost nothing... unfortunately, you were the one to catch the steam bursting... sorry about that, my friend.

The problem was that we had 4 or 5 conservatives that badly split the vote. At the end, we had Gingrich and Santorum and neither would concede, each arguing that they were the better candiate and as a result, Romney ended up winning by a plurality because conservatives split their vote. It was not the GOP-e that gave us Romney, but rather the egos of the other candidates.

I hear you (and others) on the whole establishment vs the grass roots thing, but I don’t see this power play as being anti conservative/grass roots, but rather an action that they felt that they had to take to fend off the Paul supporters attempt to blow up Romney’s convention. Doesn’t make it right, I know, but Romney is the nominee whether we like it or not, and the selfish, self-interested and immature Paul supporters wanted to give Romney a bloody nose at the convention. They made this action necessary.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.