Can a divided GOP continue to stand?
Journal-News Editorial
Sunday, February 18, 2007
"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
Mark 3:25
Extras
As we recently observed, the internal affairs of Butler County's two political parties are their own business. How they choose their leadership, finance their activities, and choose whom they will endorse in primary elections are their private affairs. However, it should be pointed out that the success of each party — although influenced heavily by a strong conservative base among voters here — also relies on the quality of those internal decisions and presenting a unified front.
Such is the dominance of the Republican Party in Butler County that it retains control of county government in spite of a deep fracture that became most apparent when county Commissioner Michael Fox wrote a scathing 78-page report in 2003 about the county's domestic relations and juvenile courts that did not spare fellow Republicans who were and are judges in those courts.
The rift in the party has been most apparent during primary election season: in the short-lived challenge to Fox by then-state Rep. Gregory Jolivette in the 2004 GOP primary (Jolivette withdrew and was later placed on the commission via a party-engineered job swap with Courtney Combs); in the 2006 primary challenge to longtime Auditor Kay Rogers, who was able to defeat the party's endorsed candidate, Roger Reynolds, and then win the general election; and in the apparent challenge in 2008 to Commissioner Charles Furmon by fellow Republican Rawnica Dillingham. And even the most casual political observer knows that — given the GOP's strength and the Democrats' debility here — the primary election is the de facto general election in Butler County.
So it was interesting to learn recently that the county GOP — which is struggling financially after building an $800,000 headquarters in Fairfield Twp. — had purged some 40 members from its roster for failing to pay dues. And last week it was revealed that the party is considering a plan that would seek significant financial contributions from elected Republican officeholders, a plan that has been criticized by some party members as a "pay-to-play" system. Officeholders like Fox and Rogers are predictably balking at the proposal. "I stopped giving to the party when they turned against me," Fox said last week.
Under the proposal, Fox — while in office — would be expected to pay $2,500 to the party each year, plus 10 percent of campaign funds he raises. The level of expected contribution varies from office to office, with the county prosecutor expected to fork over $5,000 annually to the party, as well as 10 percent of campaign funds surpassing $50,000.
So why should voters care about this proposal?
First, the salaries of these officeholders come from taxpayers, and that's who these public servants should be serving. This proposal strips away any polite pretense that county officeholders aren't at the beck and call of the Republican Party — and they had better pay up if they want to stay in office. "I have always believed that a political party is supposed to help candidates and officeholders, not the other way around," Rogers said last week.
Fox and Rogers managed to survive without party support — in large part, we believe, due to their ability to communicate directly with voters and to raise funds independently, as well as good name recognition — but other officeholders may not be so bold.
Secondly, voters should care because the Republican Party's deepening split and financial woes raise the possibility that the GOP's stranglehold on county government could be broken in the future. As we have observed here in the past, we believe that a monopoly on county government by either party is not healthy, and that taxpayers would be better served if both parties were represented and able to hold each other accountable on spending and taxing decisions.
Ironically, the so-called "pay-to-play" plan from the Republican Party may help to accomplish what the county Democratic Party has been unable to do — that is, to give voters better choices at the ballot box by disrupting the party's lock step. Voters will just have to figure out who the real Republicans are.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
Mark 3:25
Extras
As we recently observed, the internal affairs of Butler County's two political parties are their own business. How they choose their leadership, finance their activities, and choose whom they will endorse in primary elections are their private affairs. However, it should be pointed out that the success of each party — although influenced heavily by a strong conservative base among voters here — also relies on the quality of those internal decisions and presenting a unified front.
Such is the dominance of the Republican Party in Butler County that it retains control of county government in spite of a deep fracture that became most apparent when county Commissioner Michael Fox wrote a scathing 78-page report in 2003 about the county's domestic relations and juvenile courts that did not spare fellow Republicans who were and are judges in those courts.
The rift in the party has been most apparent during primary election season: in the short-lived challenge to Fox by then-state Rep. Gregory Jolivette in the 2004 GOP primary (Jolivette withdrew and was later placed on the commission via a party-engineered job swap with Courtney Combs); in the 2006 primary challenge to longtime Auditor Kay Rogers, who was able to defeat the party's endorsed candidate, Roger Reynolds, and then win the general election; and in the apparent challenge in 2008 to Commissioner Charles Furmon by fellow Republican Rawnica Dillingham. And even the most casual political observer knows that — given the GOP's strength and the Democrats' debility here — the primary election is the de facto general election in Butler County.
So it was interesting to learn recently that the county GOP — which is struggling financially after building an $800,000 headquarters in Fairfield Twp. — had purged some 40 members from its roster for failing to pay dues. And last week it was revealed that the party is considering a plan that would seek significant financial contributions from elected Republican officeholders, a plan that has been criticized by some party members as a "pay-to-play" system. Officeholders like Fox and Rogers are predictably balking at the proposal. "I stopped giving to the party when they turned against me," Fox said last week.
Under the proposal, Fox — while in office — would be expected to pay $2,500 to the party each year, plus 10 percent of campaign funds he raises. The level of expected contribution varies from office to office, with the county prosecutor expected to fork over $5,000 annually to the party, as well as 10 percent of campaign funds surpassing $50,000.
So why should voters care about this proposal?
First, the salaries of these officeholders come from taxpayers, and that's who these public servants should be serving. This proposal strips away any polite pretense that county officeholders aren't at the beck and call of the Republican Party — and they had better pay up if they want to stay in office. "I have always believed that a political party is supposed to help candidates and officeholders, not the other way around," Rogers said last week.
Fox and Rogers managed to survive without party support — in large part, we believe, due to their ability to communicate directly with voters and to raise funds independently, as well as good name recognition — but other officeholders may not be so bold.
Secondly, voters should care because the Republican Party's deepening split and financial woes raise the possibility that the GOP's stranglehold on county government could be broken in the future. As we have observed here in the past, we believe that a monopoly on county government by either party is not healthy, and that taxpayers would be better served if both parties were represented and able to hold each other accountable on spending and taxing decisions.
Ironically, the so-called "pay-to-play" plan from the Republican Party may help to accomplish what the county Democratic Party has been unable to do — that is, to give voters better choices at the ballot box by disrupting the party's lock step. Voters will just have to figure out who the real Republicans are.
posted by Scott @ 1:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home