Column details Howie Rich's attempt to buy SC

The State newspaper editor Cindi Ross Scoppe, whose columns have detailed Howie Rich's involvement in South Carolina, wrote at the end of July that she's often criticized for overlooking the contributions of other individuals and organizations from outside the state, and focusing so much on Rich.

If anyone wants to ban corporate and union donations, that's fine with me. A corporation or a union is not a human being, and doesn't have the First Amendment rights that the U.S. Supreme Court has ridiculously said gives actual people the right to spend all the money they please to influence our votes.

But there's a big difference between those donations and the Rich donations, in at least four ways.

** First, while some incumbents receive the bulk of their funding from corporate interests, it's rare that any one business is responsible for more than a sliver of a candidate's total donations; few evade the $1,000 donation limit. Moreover, there's a balancing function inherent in the hedge-your-bets approach of most corporations: A donation from AT&T, for instance, might be counterbalanced by one from rival Time Warner Cable.

And in those instances when a candidate is bankrolled by a single interest -- say trial lawyers -- that usually becomes a campaign issue. As it should. The Rich lackeys are clearly perturbed that his donations are an issue.

** Second, unlike Mr. Rich, who practically brags during his famous Katon Dawson interview that he has no financial, business or personal interests in our state, those other out-of-state interests do: They employ thousands of South Carolinians, pay S.C. income, sales and property taxes, run their businesses under the rules our Legislature passes.

I don't think they should have as much say as voters (and certainly not a greater say), but they do have a legitimate interest in how our state is governed, which cannot be said of Mr. Rich.

** Third, although Mr. Rich makes the point that he is obeying our laws, he goes to greater lengths than anyone I've seen to get around the intent of the law, by hiding his donations until it's too late for the information to do voters any good.

Donations that candidates receive during the final 20 days before an election don't have to be reported until the following quarter. That makes it pretty easy for donors to hide their involvement until after the voting. (It also means voters have no idea who's bankrolling a runoff campaign, since all runoff donations come in during this blackout period, but we can't really blame the candidates or the donors for that.)

According to blogger Ross Shealy (scbarbecue.blogspot.com), who has been scouring legislative candidates' campaign disclosure reports for Mr. Rich's fingerprints, 10 of the 37 recipients of Rich et al funding in last month's primaries didn't receive any of that money until the blackout period.

In some cases, this penchant for secrecy is almost comical. In Greenville's House District 22, Wendy Nanney took $18,000, 45 percent of her donations, from the Rich gang to unseat Rep. Gloria Haskins -- a fellow voucher supporter. Yet even with no threat of an attack on that issue, Mr. Rich still delayed all but $3,000 of the donations until after the final pre-election disclosure reports were due, so voters couldn't learn of them until after they voted.

** Finally, what makes the Howie Rich machine so different is the sheer volume of money he throws at candidates.

The Associated Press' Jim Davenport identified $577,000 in last month's primaries: $357,000 from Mr. Rich and 21 of his companies; $49,000 from other companies that share his Manhattan address; and another $171,000 from a handful of individuals and organizations affiliated with him.

That wouldn't be quite so bad -- though it's more than the big corporations that employ South Carolinians tend to give -- if it were equally distributed among the 35 recipients Mr. Davenport wrote about, or the 37 Mr. Shealy identified. It is not.

Mr. Shealy, who is as fixated on unmasking Mr. Rich as Mr. Rich is on imposing his vision on our state, tells me that 13 of the candidates received more than half their total donations from Mr. Rich and company; one received 97 percent. It wasn't uncommon for House candidates to receive $20,000 or more; one Senate candidate received $740,000.

And what did Mr. Rich get for his investments? Twenty-one of his candidates lost, including three incumbents. One dropped out. One was unopposed. And 14 won, but that included five incumbents who were shoe-ins for re-election. Which shows that this kind of money can't buy you everything -- but it can buy something, particularly when no one knows you're doing the purchasing.

What makes Howie Rich 's donations so different
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 29, 2008

And in the next day's edition, she continues her examination of Rich's influence by outlining in detail who collected Rich's contributions -- the ones that went directly to candidates' campaigns, and which don't include the funding of independent organizations like South Carolinians for Responsible Government.

I PROMISE you I'm more tired of writing about Howie Rich's campaign to buy our Legislature than you are of reading about it. But I figure if somebody's willing to put down more than half a million bucks in a single round of primary elections, just to make sure a Legislature in a state he has no ties to spends other people's tax dollars the way he sees fit, we owe him some ink.

Today we'll look at the candidates who took money from Mr. Rich, his 21 LLCs, other companies that share his Manhattan address and a handful of related people and organizations that tend to donate the same day he does.

My list is drawn from the research of blogger Ross Shealy (scbarbecue.blogspot.com), whose totals match the ones produced by The Associated Press. It shows how much each candidate received and how much of that came in during the 20-day blackout period before the primaries, when donations don't have to be reported until after the election. It doesn't include expenditures by third-party groups that receive their funding from Mr. Rich.

Some candidates face opposition in November, but here's the score so far: Three of the 11 incumbents Mr. Rich backed lost; two of his 14 challengers unseated incumbents; candidates he backed in open seats won seven of 12 races; and one of his candidates dropped out.

Rich incumbents re-elected:

** Sen. Mike Fair, Senate District 6, $6,000, all of it during the blackout period.

** Sen. Greg Ryberg, S.24, $7,000, all of it during the blackout period.

** Sen. Robert Ford, S.42, $8,000, half of it before the blackout period but none reported until July.

** Rep. Thad Viers, House District 68, $13,000, none of it reported until after the election.

** Rep. Kit Spires, H.96, $3,000 -- $2,000 of it during the blackout period.

** Rep. Curtis Brantley, H.122, $28,000 -- 65 percent of his donations -- all during the blackout period.

** Rep. Richard Chalk, H.123, $3,000, all during the blackout period.

Rich incumbents defeated:

** Rep. Bob Leach, H.21, $5,000.

** Rep. Ralph Davenport, H.37, $7,000. His disclosure report shows all his donations were made before the blackout period, but he did not report them as required by law until July.

** Rep. Heyward Hutson, H.94, $7,000 -- $3,000 of it during the blackout period.

Incumbent slayers:

** Wendy Nanney, H.22, $18,000 -- 45 percent of her donations --all but $3,000 during the blackout period. She beat fellow voucher supporter Gloria Haskins.

** Joey Millwood , H.38, $32,000 -- 65 percent of his donations. All but $3,000 was given on May 24 -- three days into the blackout period. He defeated House Education Chairman Bob Walker.

Rich open-seat winners:

** Dee Compton, S.10, $33,000, all during the blackout period.

** Lee Bright, S.12, $50,000, all during the blackout period.

** Deborah Long, H.45, $12,000 -- 40 percent of her donations. All but $3,000 of that came during the blackout period.

** Tim Scott, H.117, $16,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Tommy Stringer, H.18, $10,000, all but $3,000 during the blackout period.

** Daniel Hamilton, H.20, $5,000. He was unopposed.

Rich challengers defeated:

** Katrina Shealy, S.23, $74,000 -- 51 percent of her donations -- all but $5,000 during the blackout period.

** Levone Graves, S.30, $5,000, all but $1,000 during the blackout period, which covered the runoff.

** Raymond Russell, H.31, $21,000 -- 76 percent of his donations -- all on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Ken Roach, H.34, $16,000 -- 69 percent of his donations. All of it was given on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Roger Nutt, H.35, $20,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Annie McDaniel, H.41, $21,000 -- 85 percent of her donations -- all during the blackout period, on the day of the primary.

** Ed Rumsey, H.2, $17,000 -- 65 percent of his donations -- $14,000 during the blackout period.

** Trey Whitehurst, H.3, $18,000, all but $2,000 during the blackout period.

** Kyle Boyd, H.48, $2,000.

** Ennis Bryant, H.50, $4,000 -- 74 percent of his donations -- all during the blackout period.

** Naim Salahudeen, H.54, $5,000 -- 61 percent of his donations -- none reported before the election.

** Zina Manning, H.55, $8,000 -- 96 percent of her donations -- all during the blackout period. (If she had defeated Rep. Jackie Hayes, this would have made a great trivia question: What candidate was swept into office by the video poker barons because the incumbent opposed them and then out by the voucher barons because he opposed them?)

** Priscilla Robinson, H.66, $14,000, all but $2,000 on the first day of the blackout period. She received another $4,000 from donors with a New York address that Mr. Shealy considered suspicious but whose affiliations he has not confirmed.

** Sheri Few, H.79, $26,000 -- 51 percent of her donations. Half of it came in during the blackout period.

** Scott Singer, H.81, $21,000, all during the blackout period. (The Aiken Standard reports that he returned all but $3,000 after the election.)

** James Whitehead, H.83, $11,000 -- 98 percent of his donations -- all on a single day, during the blackout period.

** Wendell Gilliard, H.111, $5,000, all of it during the blackout period, on the day after the primary.

** Joseph Bustos, H.112, $27,000 -- 55 percent of his donations -- all but $3,000 during the blackout period.

Finally, Rep. Joe Mahaffey, H.36, received $4,000 on Feb. 29 and dropped his re-election bid that same day, making way for voucher backer and former Rep. Rita Allison to take back her seat.

The Who's Who list of Howie Rich friends and foes
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 30, 2008

Counting up the number of House and Senate races that Howie Rich sought to influence, it's 37 out of the South Carolina General Assembly's 170 total seats. If he'd been completely successful, Rich would hold sway over nearly one-quarter of a state's legislature -- a state where he can't cast a single vote.

Howie Rich and his money appear in SC

In late July, South Carolina blogger Ross Shealy churned out a trove of data showing Howie Rich's involvement in 18 different House races in the state -- a state where Rich has never lived -- especially donating large sums of money during a 20-day "blackout period" where it could be shielded from the public until after the election.

Although candidates are required by law to keep their books up-to-date and "open to public inspection upon request" during the entire quarter in which a vote is held, the last pre-election report they file with the state doesn't have to include any donations made during the final 20 days before the election. The practical result is that if a donor wants to hide his support for a candidate until after the vote, he can almost certainly do that.

That is precisely what the would-be puppet-master of our state Legislature, libertarian millionaire investor Howie Rich , has done. Blogger Ross Shealy has so far found 18 candidates in the June primary who received tens of thousands of dollars each during that blackout period from Mr. Rich, his various business interests and the same small group of like-minded associates. In some cases, a handful of donations were made early enough to be included in the pre-election reports, but the money spigot was turned wide open once it was safe from prying eyes. In seven races, there was no trace of such money in the pre-election reports.

Among the findings of Mr. Shealy, whose primary purpose in life seems to be exposing the activities of Mr. Rich and others who seek to divert public money to private schools:

** Katrina Shealy, who lost to Sen. Jake Knotts, received $5,000 from Rich et al. that she had to report on her May campaign disclosure report. During the blackout period, she received another $69,000.

** Lee Bright, who defeated Rep. Scott Talley for an open Senate seat in Spartanburg County, received $50,000 -- all during the blackout period.

** Ken Roach, who lost a race for Mr. Talley's House seat, received $16,000 -- 69 percent of his total contributions -- all during the blackout period.

Asking candidates to do nothing more than make their donation records available for public inspection during the final days of a campaign could be justified back when the law was passed, in the pre-Internet era. It no longer can be; nor should anyone try.

As Mr. Rich has reminded us (we first saw such shenanigans back when the video poker barons were the ones trying to intimidate our Legislature into submission), the law allows candidates to mislead voters. In some cases, the recipients of his largess had been accused during the blackout period of being beholden to him, and they claimed they had received little or no money from New York. In other cases, no one even thought to ask, because the candidates had been trained either to avoid talking about school "choice" or else to be vague about it.

Sunshine needed on last-minute campaign giving
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 20, 2008

Then, out of the blue, Howie Rich himself appeared in a series of YouTube videos, being interviewed by South Carolina Republican Party chairman Katon Dawson, in Dawson's own home in Columbia. Dawson said that Rich made the trip to South Carolina just for this interview.

The State newspaper editor Cindi Ross Scoppe wrote this about the YouTube interviews:

WE SAID Howie Rich was an outsider with no interest in our state, pumping in massive amounts of money to try to control our Legislature; his supporters bristled. We said he was trying to use South Carolina as a launching pad to spread his narrow ideological view across the country; they balked. We said he had a single-minded fixation on what he calls "school choice" they objected.

And now, in an extraordinary interview with the chairman of the state Republican Party, the man who wants to give parents who will send their kids to private schools our tax dollars, or else give them a pass on paying taxes themselves, has confirmed pretty much everything I and other critics ever said about him.

Some question the propriety of Katon Dawson providing such a fawning platform ("So you felt it was your duty as an American to be involved in these issues, not just in South Carolina but in the other states?") for a man whose main focus for five years has been unseating Republican state legislators. I'll leave that for Republicans to fight out; I'm grateful to Mr. Dawson.

No matter how friendly a questioner he was, Mr. Dawson's interview provides the fullest look South Carolina voters have had at our Legislature's would-be puppetmaster, and in so doing washes away any hint of deniability of his intentions. Here's a little of what we learn from Mr. Rich:

** He has no ties to our state.

"Here in South Carolina," he said, "I own no property, I have no businesses down here, so there's no real monetary benefit." This is his proof that his motivations are pure; after all, what's more important than making money? If that's not what you're trying to do, you must be Mother Theresa.

Try to imagine this: George Soros or some other bete noire of the left targets our legislators, explaining that he has no financial interest, but merely wants to bring his enlightened world view to power in our state -- and state Republicans smile with approval.

** He's a one-issue guy in South Carolina, and his interest in that issue extends across the nation. Mr. Rich said he has long been interested in lowering taxes, shrinking government and preserving "personal freedom," but these days he's focused on public school "choice" and term limits.

"I'm involved in school choice in South Carolina," he said, "and I've been involved all across the country in that issue, also since as early as 1990. We're talking Washington state, California, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado and several other states."

This is significant because his sycophants insist that the agenda they push with his money is much larger than one issue. They say this to deny charges that their attacks on issues other than school "choice" are part of a bait-and-switch campaign. Their patron begs to differ.

** He'd love to use South Carolina as a launching pad. When Mr. Dawson asked whether he though a victory here could be "a model for the rest of the nation," Mr. Rich excitedly said he did, and then launched into a recap of recent successes in Florida and Georgia. "So we have a whole Southeastern strategy so to speak, with Florida, Georgia and hopefully South Carolina."

** We're stuck with him. "I am not going away, and my groups are not going away," he said, in the one part of the interview that has been widely reported. "If we get a bill, a good bill, in 2009, I'm sure Governor Sanford will sign it. That'll be terrific. If not, it could be 2010, 2011 or 2015."

** He believes that if you oppose his ideas, you must be on the take; you could not possibly just believe he's wrong. He explained to Mr. Dawson that it is impossible for his opponents to understand his altruistic motivations "because the other side is in it for one thing -- taxpayer dollars. They love it every year when the Legislature gives them more money for what they call 'education.'"

** He believes that private schools are always and inherently superior to public schools. It's not even an assertion on his part; it's an article of faith. "And these are going to be much better schools," he said of those private schools in our state that would educate "one child, ten kids, a thousand children, ten thousand children" at taxpayer expense. He said it much the way you might say, "and it's pleasant out today."

** He grades on a curve. Public schools may be irredeemable by definition, but the governor whose biggest accomplishment in six years has been to bring the House and Senate together in opposition to pretty much every one of his initiatives "has been just terrific" in the area of lower taxes and spending.

** He believes there should be no restrictions on his efforts to purchase himself a friendly little Southern Legislature. "This is money that I earned honestly, primarily in the real estate business," he said, "and I believe since it's my money, I can do with it as I choose. And if I want to do something I strongly believe in ... I should be allowed to do that. Everything I've done is 100 percent legal."

He's right: It is legal, although there's good reason to question whether his shell-game approach -- giving the $1,000 legal maximum contribution to each chosen candidate not only from his personal account but also from a network of paper companies with obscure names, even before enlisting his cronies across the nation to do likewise -- should be.

But in this country, even those of us who don't have the money to evade the intent of the campaign donation law are allowed to have our own opinion about whether legislators should be beholden to someone with views such as these. And if we don't think they should -- and if we actually live in South Carolina -- we get to say so at the polls.

Howie Rich , in his own words
State, The (Columbia, SC) - July 24, 2008

Columnist: "Howie Rich cabal" seeks to dismantle government

Columnist Cindi Ross Scoppe, who had previously written about an alleged "hit list" in The State newspaper, explained how her editorial board arrived at its endorsements for candidates in a column on June 20. In it, she identified an element that weighed heavily in the paper's thought process: the influence of "New York millionaire Howard Rich, his generous fellow travelers scattered across the country and the secretive organizations they bankroll inside our state," and his agenda to "buy our Legislature" and "dismantle government."

As she described it, that element has proven to be a decisive factor.

As I explained to a Senate candidate this spring, often we literally make a list of all the reasons to endorse each candidate and all the reasons not to, and pick the one with the most positives and fewest negatives. Obviously, some items carry more weight than others: Supporting comprehensive tax reform is more important than which particular taxes you want to raise or lower; you'll lose more points for favoring government by referendum than for wanting to keep a particular agency out of the governor's hands. Still, it's the sum of all those pluses and minuses that determines our choice.

In recent years, though, it has become progressively more difficult to maintain this "whole candidate" approach, thanks to a new force in state politics -- New York millionaire Howard Rich, his generous fellow travelers scattered across the country and the secretive organizations they bankroll inside our state.

The problem with these campaign carpetbaggers isn't merely that they're exaggerating the shortcomings of our public schools in order to advance the bankrupt idea of diverting tax money to private schools. It's that this is just the first step in an effort to dismantle government. It's that they try to hide their objectives (and identities), finding or even fabricating other reasons to attack an incumbent, taking care not to mention vouchers. It's that they force us to pick a team -- their team or not their team.

And because the one non-negotiable requirement for being on their team is supporting vouchers and tax credits, they put those of us who oppose their team in the position of looking like we're the ones fixated on vouchers.

Fortunately, my colleagues and I haven't gotten to the point where we liked everything about a candidate except his support for vouchers or tax credits. Usually, the private "choice" supporters have had a lot of other objectionable qualities: Many have signed the no-new-taxes pledge -- not a disqualifier alone, but a big red mark in the negative category; many have memorized the governor's tax talking points -- again, not a disqualifier by itself.

But we've come uncomfortably close to that, and nowhere more than in our endorsement of Sen. Jake Knotts. There's enough objectionable about him -- and enough to like about his challenger in Tuesday's runoff, Katrina Shealy -- that reasonable people have concluded that we've become a one-issue editorial board.

Like everything else related to the Howie Rich cabal, that is a distortion of reality.

Before the out-of-state voucher money started flowing into our state, I didn't have strong feelings about vouchers. I didn't see any way they would do any good systematically, but I didn't consider them terribly dangerous -- if they were rolled out the way Mr. Sanford proposed in his first campaign, as a small experiment, maybe in a couple of districts, and going only to poor kids. But that was never proposed. Once the money spigot was turned on, the agenda changed to match the goals of the patrons: Now the plan was to provide all kids with vouchers or, worse still if you claim to want to help poor kids, tax credits, which won't even help half the state's population because they don't pay enough in state income taxes to benefit.

Just as our opposition to video poker had less to do with gambling than with the attempt by video poker barons to control our state government, our objection to the voucher candidates has less to do with vouchers than with their affiliations.

You see, when you vote for Ms. Shealy or any of the other candidates who wouldn't have a prayer without Mr. Rich's money, you're not just voting for that candidate. You're voting for that team. And even the damage that a full-throttle voucher/tax credit program could do to our state fades to insignificance alongside the damage that would be done if Mr. Rich's dream team is able to buy our Legislature.

Outside money elevates one issue above others, and it's not vouchers
State, The (Columbia, SC) - June 20, 2008

Columnist details a "hit campaign" memo

In June, columnist Cindi Ross Scoppe described a "hit campaign" outlined in a memorandum that she says was "allegedly written by" a former spokesman for the governor, Mark Sanford.

It's the one that created a stir at the State House earlier this year, allegedly written by former Sanford spokesman Will Folks, which lists the lawmakers who should be taken out in order to create "a more conservative Republican majority" to implement Mr. Sanford's ideas, along with the strategy for accomplishing that. On a hunch, I picked it up and started thumbing through it.

It's so filled with over-the-top, cloak-and-dagger nonsense that if I didn't know better, I'd think it was parody, composed by a clever writer who planned to let it "leak," and then sit back and laugh at all the gullible media types and lawmakers who took it seriously. But I knew it wasn't parody, because I had just seen it being implemented.

Central to the strategy, the memo said, was to "create a unifying platform" for favored challengers to sign -- "Call it a 'Contract With South Carolina,' a "South Carolina Contract for Competitiveness,' call it whatever". It would include "a spending cap, an overhaul of the tax code and government restructuring."

The memo suggests the creation of a "Core Council" that would coordinate the campaign (working in secret so nobody knew it was coordinated, and thus subject to those pesky campaign disclosure laws that Mr. Sanford championed but his best allies have no intention of obeying).
...
The memo doesn't say who's bankrolling the hit campaign, but we know who has been pouring money into the Sanford agenda: the anti-government folks from New York and other parts outside our state whose first goal is to undermine public support for the most expensive thing state government does, by paying parents to abandon the public schools.

As Scoppe describes the memo, it sounds like a template that could be applied to any state.

Scoppe writes that she and her colleagues have supported a "government restructuring" initiative for years, but the presence of this memo puts her and other in "the Mark Sanford dilemma."

My colleagues and I have been pushing him for years to put some political muscle into government restructuring, rather than reserving it all for income tax cuts and vouchers. Now, it appears that he's doing just that. And I so want to believe that he is. But can anybody trust him and his support groups, particularly given who's writing the checks?

Consider their past -- and their present.

We're now in the middle of the third Republican primary cycle that is marked by big-bucks campaigns aimed at defeating legislators who oppose private-school vouchers and tax credits. Each time, you were hard-pressed to find any mention of vouchers or tax credits in the reams of attack post cards and radio spots. Simple reason: The voucher backers know they're not popular in South Carolina -- not even in Republican primaries.

So they attack on other grounds, usually making misleading charges and occasionally even fabricating them. They say their targets want to raise the gas tax based on a survey they filled out a decade ago, claim they voted for spending bills that they actually opposed, focus on state judicial elections that they hope voters will confuse with the liberal-conservative fights in Washington that haven't occurred here.

In short, SCRG and Conservatives in Action and other pro-Sanford groups whose funding has been traced back to New York libertarian Howie Rich (scbarbecue.blogspot.com) have a record of building their campaigns around populist Trojan horses to hide their real agenda and suck in ordinary voters who don't live and breathe this stuff.

"Be careful what you ask for; you might get a Trojan horse," State, The (Columbia, SC) - June 4, 2008

New Yorker has history in Alaska, too

The Howie Rich who was mentioned by Cindi Ross Scoppe in The State on May 13 was mentioned also by a reporter in Alaska's Anchorage Daily News last winter, on January 9, more than a week before Joey Millwood's public forum on immigration in Landrum. A former Alaska state representative named Dick Randolph told the Daily News that he was "contacted by an associate of his old friend, New York land developer Howie Rich" about leading a ballot initiative campaign there.

On January 20, a writer in the Juneau Empire explained the initiative and the relationship between Randolph and Rich:

For example, two initiatives before us are the Clean Elections Initiative and the Anti-Corruption Act. On the surface, both initiatives appear to be like-minded efforts, but in reality they are diametrically opposed. Clean Elections proposes greater public funding/participation in future elections while the anti-corruption effort clearly prohibits this objective. Even more disconcerting are allegations that the anti-corruption folks are claiming their effort is a substitute for the Clean Elections Initiative. If so, it is clearly not. But the bigger issue lies in the existing disclosure rules. The sponsors of the Clean Elections Initiative have voluntarily disclosed their funding sources, while the anti-corruption campaign folks will not - their right under existing law until the initiative is certified.

What is known is that the anti-corruption campaign has at least indirect ties to Howard Rich, a New York real estate developer. This tie stems from former state Rep. Dick Randolph, who has lent his name to the anti-corruption effort. Both men are friends and devoted libertarians. Unfortunately, Rich is infamous for funding stealth citizen initiatives in other Western states. Nearly all have failed, but more importantly, some have been thrown out by the courts due to "persuasive patterns of wrong doing and fraud."

While there is no proof of wrong doing in Alaska, we cannot afford to be blindsided again. Full disclosure of the funding behind initiatives from the get-go would go a long way in letting citizens decide whether proposed initiatives can pass the common "smell" test.

And, back in the original Anchorage Daily News article, Randolph confirmed part of that information.

Randolph said he knew Rich as a prominent member of the national Libertarian Party. Today, Rich is better known for his controversial role in quietly paying for initiative efforts in Western states, according to a series of news reports over the past two years.

"Clean elections, anti-corruption initiatives aren't the same critter - 1 seeks, 1 bans public campaign money"
Anchorage Daily News (AK) - January 9, 2008

An author named Melinda Pillsbury-Foster knows more about their relationship. In the late 1970s, she writes,

in Alaska, a state with a population of only one million and an unusual set of circumstances due to the Alaska Pipe Line things had been developing. They continued to develop, but in very different directions. Several people had been elected to the state legislature as Libertarians. No matter what the size of the legislative body this was a major accomplishment.

It began with a guy named Dick Randolph, who had served two terms as a Republican state legislator in 1974 and 1974. After that he dropped out and did some thinking. Then he ran again, but this time as a Libertarian, in 1980 and then in 1982. This caused an explosion of popularity for Libertarianism in the Far North. Dick was the kind of guy who was well liked and thought of in his community. Dick encouraged another Libertarian, Ken Fanning, to run in his district in 1982 and Fanning squeaked in, too. Then Randolph decided to run for governor as a Libertarian in 1984. He lost, naturally. But Alaskans were happy that Randolph had managed to rescind the state income tax. It looked like anything was possible.

Another writer named Murray Rothbard was editor of the Libertarian Forum, the monthly newsletter of the Libertarian Party in the 1980s. Rothbard explained the relationship between Howie Rich and Dick Randolph in February 1983, when he listed several Libertarian Party activists who had created their own organization within the party. Rothbard called this organization the "Crane Machine," named for its leader, Ed Crane.

Rothbard wrote that Howie Rich "ran the disastrous Guida campaign for national chair in 1981, the equally disastrous Randolph campaign in 1982, and the likewise disastrous Northrup for Governor campaign in New York in 1982."

Of Randolph, Rothbard wrote, "A special category for the straw boss of the Alaska LP. Formerly State Rep, ran disastrous campaign for Governor in 1982. Turned his entire campaign over to the Crane Machine. One has the feeling, however, that Dick could someday leave the Machine. Is rumored to be suffering from revolt within Alaska LP."

Rothbard's notes say that a man named Kent Guida, a former businessman from Maryland, "ran the calamitous Randolph campaign under Rich's supervision." Another Libertarian, Eric O'Keefe, had been the national director of the Libertarian Party, but "when ousted, went to Alaska to help Guida run the Randolph fiasco."

Rothbard ties all of these men together under the leadership of Ed Crane, and he describes Crane this way:

The Big Boss: capo di tutti capi. Main power base: Head of the Cato Institute, which moved from San Franciso to Washington, D.C. early in the Reagan Administration to be close to the Corridors of Power. Also, Boss of: Libertarian Review Foundation, and its publications Inquiry and Update; National Taxpayers Legal Fund; and the Crane Machine in the Libertarian Party. Formerly, boss of Students for a Libertarian Society, and formerly, National Chairman of the LP. Managed the LP presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980.