Denying GOP Committee A Secret Ballot Is Hypocrisy

The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), commonly known as “Card Check,” is the misnamed legislation promoted by Organized Labor to stop the hemorrhaging within union ranks.  (From a high near 40 percent after World War II, union representation in the private sector has plummeted to just 7 percent today). It would make organizing a union infinitely easier by eliminating the current secret ballot vote used to determine whether employees wish to unionize.

Common sense tells us that whenever a secret ballot is not employed, many people will not vote their conscience.  Instead, they fall victim to intimidation and arm-twisting, and end up casting a ballot in favor of the person whom they are strongly encouraged ---AKA “told” --- to support.  The result is a rigged, Banana Republic election, anything but “Free Choice.”

The Republican Party, on both the state and national level, has vigorously opposed Card Check, not only because it is grossly unfair to companies, but much more important, because it would cavalierly discard that most fundamental American bedrock value: free and fair elections.  It is a right that has been held sacred in this nation, and has allowed the people to chart their own course and make their own decisions, free of outside influence and intimidation.

Given this, it seems extremely hypocritical that the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania --- while opposing Card Check --- jettisons free and fair voting for its own members by refusing to allow secret ballot votes on important issues, such as Party endorsements.

And now, on the eve of the meeting in which the Committee will vote whether to endorse a candidate for the U.S. Senate (or not endorse at all), that issue has become a firestorm that is only growing in intensity.

The big question centers on whether the Party will endorse millionaire Steve Welch, a favorite among several GOP leaders, including Republican Governor Tom Corbett. The problem many have with Welch is that he voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and supported former Congressman Joe Sestak, a stalwart liberal consistently to the Left of Obama. Welch claims he left the GOP out of frustration that it wasn’t conservative enough, leaving more than a few Republicans perplexed.

(In an email to PoliticsPA this week, Sestak wrote of his meeting with Welch: “He expressed support of me and what I stood for. He seemed nice and, separately, supportive of the Democratic Party and its efforts.”)

So would the Party really risk massive damage to itself by endorsing an Obama-voter, and make the sin mortal by doing so without a secret ballot?

They can’t be that dumb.

But this being Pennsylvania’s Republican Party, all bets are off.

Should they endorse Welch, it will be a double whammy, throwing the entire Party into a quagmire from which it would be difficult to escape.

State Committee would cement the perception that its endorsements are behind-the-scenes deals by inside powerbrokers hell-bent on executing individual agendas --- the rank-and-file Party faithful be damned.  More damaging, it would play out --- in full public view --- exactly how ruthlessly efficient Card Check tactics are, making unions blush with envy.

How could Party leaders possibly explain with a straight face that the process was fair, and that no political pressure and intimidation took place --- when Governor Corbett and certain State Committee leaders were openly pushing Welch?  Would it really be plausible to believe that the message “do it for the Party, and do it for your Governor --- or else your political career stops here” wouldn’t be made loud and clear?

Even more telling, how could the Party explain Committee members’ change of heart in endorsing Welch after only one of five State Committee regional caucus straw polls voted for Welch as their candidate of choice? In other words, of the five regional “pre-election” votes that took place --- voted on by the very same people who are now being asked to change their vote and endorse Welch --- only one made Welch a winner. Significantly, Welch’s own Southeast Caucus refused to hold a straw poll, and Corbett was not even able to deliver his hometown Southwest Caucus for Welch.

This is by no means an indictment of Steve Welch. It has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the Republican Party. Clearly, in this particular situation, the wisest course of action would be to ignore the Governor’s misguided endorsement and refuse to endorse any candidate. 

In allowing grassroots Republicans across Pennsylvania to make their choice, free of Party endorsements, a civil war inside the GOP would be averted, and the best candidate --- the people’s choice --- would emerge to take on incumbent Bob Casey.  And if Welch wins a non-endorsement primary, his victory would not be tainted with the perception that he “bought” his way to the nomination.  Regardless of the outcome, no one can argue with the results if rank-and-file Republican voters make that decision.

Besides gaining immense credibility with many Republicans should it not endorse a candidate, State Committee could score a huge coup by then amending its bylaws to allow for that which is uniquely American: secret ballot elections.

Otherwise, it will become known as Republican State Committee, Local 666.

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Mirriam-Webster dictionary defines “grow” as “to spring up and develop to maturity” and “to increase in size…to expand.”

Unfortunately for the Bucks County Republican machine, the idea of growth seems to be an alien concept.

For evidence of that, just look to the controversy that erupted within the GOP during the May 18 primary election.

*****

Ten grassroots activists looking to rebuild a wayward GOP decided to run for State Committee, the body charged with vetting and endorsing statewide candidates.

The unendorsed slate had little resources, so running against the might of the Bucks Establishment made their prospects of dim, at best.
Nevertheless, they pressed on, making no secret of their disagreements with the Republican leadership, whom they viewed as more interested in patronage and insider deals, rather than articulating Republican issues.

The Establishment, worried that any “insurgent” winner could weaken their political structure, responded by pulling out all stops.

There’s nothing wrong with both sides having a healthy debate, but the rules of fair play should prevail.  And in this case, it seems that they did not.

*****

In the early morning hours of Election Day, a court hearing was held to determine if a piece of campaign literature touting the challengers was legal. At issue was whether the disclaimer on the sample ballot was appropriate.

The ruling favored the plaintiffs, who happened to be three endorsed State committee candidates, with a court order prohibiting the distribution of the literature in question.

Over the next several hours, reports poured in that the unendorsed candidates and their supporters were bullied and intimidated, with some threatened that they’d be “hauled off to jail in handcuffs” if they failed to comply.

Unless scores of grassroots activists --- many of whom are new to the political process --- are outright lying, the powerbrokers behind the Bucks Machine made it abundantly clear that, since they were in charge, they could do anything they pleased. 

And their response was akin to shooting a gnat with an atomic cannon.

*****

The judge’s ruling may, or may not, have been the correct one. 

In lieu of delving into legal minutiae, suffice it to say that there is enough ambiguity in the law to conclude that this wasn’t an open and shut case.
Whether the disclaimer was worded correctly and whether the Election Code even applies to State Committee candidates remains an open question, since the Department of State does not require campaign filings for those offices.

The answer will only come after that issue is adjudicated.

But that’s hardly the point.

A closer look at the situation reveals some very troubling events and raises questions about the judgment of the Bucks County GOP hierarchy.

Consider:

1)  A source told Freindly Fire that the sample ballot was given directly to the Vice Chairwoman of the Bucks GOP, Pat Poprik--- a State Committee candidate herself---several weeks prior to the election.

And here’s where things get interesting.

Poprik has been quoted as saying, “"I hope they (the unendorsed candidates) come on board and work with us…I welcome them with open arms as wide as I can spread them.”

But under scrutiny, Ms. Poprik’s genteel attitude seems to disappear.

If she knew a problem existed with the ballot but didn’t alert the activists --- some of whom were first informed of the court order by constables --- then the rift seems irreparable, with the gulf between both sides larger than the Grand Canyon.

It fails the sniff test to believe that the three plaintiffs, all of whom are closely affiliated with Poprik, would file the suit by themselves without the vice chairwoman’s knowledge.  

But to be fair, one of two possibilities exist:

A) Poprik didn’t know of the legal challenge, which would be a clear sign that she’s lost control of her Party, or

B) She condoned the action, and in doing so, enraged many of HER OWN party.

The same logic applies to how the grassroots activists were allegedly treated by Party regulars throughout the day. If Poprik turned a blind eye to thuggery and intimidation, as some have called it, there is no place for her in a leadership position.  Likewise, if she didn’t, her ability to effectively lead should be called into serious question.

2) Why were no defendants notified of the court hearing, and why was the proceeding permitted to take place without them?

By definition, Election Day issues are timely.  And in the age of cell phones and internet, it is impossible to believe that NONE of the defendants could be located in a timely fashion.

Similarly, why did it take until May 18 for the hearing to occur?  Is it reasonable to think that sample ballot issue just happened to come to the attention of the plaintiffs THAT MORNING?

Here’s the fantastic scenario we are led to believe occurred:

After the polls opened at 7:00, the three plaintiffs learned that questionable literature was being distributed in several polling places. Coordinating with each other and agreeing that Court action should be taken, they retained an attorney --- whose office was in Trevose.  After researching election law and drafting a four page brief, the lawyer drove to Doylestown to file the complaint, which the three plaintiffs signed. 

All of which was done by 10:00.

And if you believe all that, there’s a bridge I’d like to sell you.

3) The overarching question is why a Republican organization that clearly needs all the help it can get would willfully alienate an activist, voter-rich base.  Remember that this isn’t the GOP squaring off against the Democrats, but a Party leadership engaged in civil war with its own members.

Many political veterans believe this self-destructive behavior ----- certainly not unique to Bucks County ---stems from a long-entrenched Establishment that values patronage and power more than principle and party.

And the numbers bear that out:

Bucks, once solidly Republican, now has a Democratic majority, a fact that will make liberal Congressman Patrick Murphy difficult to unseat.
Why?  Demographics shifts? National trends? Both are contributing factors, to be sure, but the answer is much more basic.

When those in leadership abuse their power to satisfy the narrow interests of the politically well-connected, the people and the Party suffer.

That’s bad enough.

But when it seems like over-reaching tactics are utilized to protect a small piece of almighty political turf, the result can be the downward spiral of the Party, from which it is difficult to fully recover.

Want proof?  Just look at the virtually non-existent Philadelphia Republican Party, whose interest in patronage and the retention of miniscule power has left the city a one-Party town. And we're all worse off because of that misguided approach.

If voter mistrust of political leadership reaches a peak ---and in Bucks, that may not be far off --- there will either be a total revolution within the organization, or the activists will stay home. 

If the latter is true, the old guard will think it has won. Instead, it will be presiding over a dying dinosaur, shaped only by the sad ghosts of the past.

If Pat Poprik and the Bucks County GOP leadership truly care about growing the Party and welcoming all with open arms, a big first step would be to admit that mistakes were made on Election Day. 

They would also be wise to begin building a solid bridge to those who were victims of excessive political wrangling.

Honesty is the best way to heal this wound, but pride will only make it fester.

With one of the most important elections in decades just months away, time is ticking.