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

Definitely not good.

A little historical perspective, though: every time a party attempts to put in rules that will achieve purpose x, they usually have the exact opposite unintended effect. Recall the post-McGovern frenzy by the Dems to require certain % of women, minorities, etc in every delegation. All that did was make them unelectable (Mondale). It took Clinton to do an end run around the whole process through the DLC and his alliances with governors to overcome the new rules. But he did.

It’s incredible that Obama is our President and only such a distasteful incumbent could force us to accept one such as Romney. But he was picked early on just like W was. The RNC gave him the big bucks and the rest is history. Hopefully things will get better without a Leninist in the White House, but not much in my estimation.

If this is the case then the Republican Party has become as Fascist as the Democrats. The Democrats forever changed the course of their party in 1972 by adopting rules changes that put the party squarely to the extreme left and cut out most centrists and conservatives. You see the end result.
The Republicans have decided,in a way, to do the same thing and cut out all grass roots and conservatives also.
The party now will be controlled centrally from D.C. and RNC headquarters.
These rule changes should give pause to all Conservatives on continuing to support this party.
Let me Phrase It Thus: CONSERVATIVES NOT WANTED!!!!!!!!!

The rule change had nothing to do with Ron Paul.
His convention trolls and odious activities at the primaries merely gave them an excuse to pull this stunt.
This was aimed at the Tea Party grassroots and Conservatives.
The nominee was already chosen for us long before any primaries were held.
Look at how Florida was sddenly ‘all awarded to Romney’ despite the RNC rules sayng that it wasn’t to be so before ‘a certain date’.

Even IF is was for a good intention, it will lead to MORE control taken away from the people... how often has a rule/regulation/law been made for a good intention that ended up making things worse... yet it was never recalled or amended?

How many of those HAVE been fixed (as far as I know.. none).

There are many saying this was to prevent Paultards from screwing things up... it may be so, but they were also pushing Conservatives out to the curb... (I DO know that the Paultards had to go.. he is NOT a Conservative, no matter what they say)... but I am sure there were other ways of getting the Libertarians out without alienating the Conservatives..

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.

This is why I always tell these people who think that "all we need to do is take the GOP over at the county level and work our way up" that they are delusional.

When the GOP-E controls the gavel, chooses who gets called on, decides what proposals get considered and which do not, decides what rules get made, etc., then it doesn't matter how many average Joes you turn out to the conventions - the GOP-E will still win at the end of the day. It's like playing a baseball game where the home team gets to move the home run wall closer or farther away from home plate, depending on who's up to bat.

When conservatives are a majority of the Republican party they can change the rules to suit themselves.

When conservatives are a majority (or even close) of the party, I’ll rejoin it.

If this is the case then the Republican Party has become as Fascist as the Democrats.

Not quite.. but getting there quickly :(

This is the most OBVIOUS it's been yet.. and WE must let them know that WE won't allow it...

I agree mostly with what you said... Paul gave them a reason to pull this off, and the timing was perfect.... BUT, not all of us are that stupid or blind.

I just pray that we can fix this really soon before there really IS a CWII.

Why was this move made? Probably because of the Paulistinians who, even though Paul did not win a single contest, still were able to maneuver to get the delegate slots. The Paul supporters were moving to nominate Paul, despite the fact that everyone’s favorite crazy uncle did not win, or even come close. They adopted the rules to avoid the embarrasment that the media would heap upon them for the Pual delegate actions.

Code Pink was able to infiltrate and disrupt Ryan’s speech and Romney’s speech. How and why? Paul supporters, of course; they gave them their credentials. What if they had given the credentials not to a whacked out chick screaming about her “lady parts” but rather to some whacked out, violent terrorist who would kill delegates, or the candidates? The Paulistinians showed their true colors this week. They were not above sabatoging the convention and the candidates in their little immature hissy fit.

“Thanks for the concise update.”

Sure. No problem. I am glad I found a well written article that summarizes what went down. Terrible situation is Romney wins and gets a challenger in 2016.

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.