Request for Cosponsors: Resolution on AIPAC and Foreign Influence in Elections

D

David Constant

SLEC Member
I am seeking co-sponsors to bring forth a vote on the resolution as written below:

Resolution on AIPAC and Foreign Influence in Elections

The Libertarian Party of Texas believes elected officials should answer to voters, not foreign interests, billionaire-funded PACs, or lobbying organizations. Furthermore, LPTexas calls for the US government and allied organizations to stay out of foreign elections.

We oppose AIPAC and any other PAC, Super PAC, or political organization that acts on behalf of, is directed by, or primarily advances the interests of a foreign nation.

No candidate, officeholder, or political party should rely on foreign-connected money or influence to gain or keep power.

To that end, LPTexas will neither accept nor support candidates who accept funding, independent expenditures, or other political support from AIPAC or any foreign-connected political organization.

The Libertarian Party of Texas supports full transparency in political spending, an end to foreign influence in elections, and a foreign policy that puts peace, liberty, and the interests of people first.
 
The main substantive difference I see is the removal of:
"So long as the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is in place, we call on AIPAC to register under such for all activities which meet the standards requiring such registration."

Which I was hoping had already been amended enough with the "in place" clause and the "which meet the standards requiring such registration" clause.
 
As Paul has summarized, I am opposed to any appearance of support for FARA. I believe we can express our stern objection to foreign influence in elections, and particularly AIPAC, without endorsing a government registration requirement.
 
I do like your stance @David Constant and I liked your wording on your original statement. Especially fond of how you tied it back to foreign aid. I wish Anastasia's had something in it about the link to foreign aid. I would just like to point out that 1- most people don't know about FARA at all, I know I didn't, and I feel I am more informed in American politics than the average Joe, so this is good opportunity to get people looking at it and questioning it. 2 - I am skeptical about the free speech violation. If you mean the constitutionally protected right to free speech, the intent is to prohibit the government from violating the peoples free speech, I am not sure if that applies to limiting what another countries' government can communicate to our government. If you are referring to our natural right to free speech, in this case I believe it is the governments job to protect us from force, fraud, and theft, especially from foreign agents or governments. This statement needs to be plain and to the point. If we can still amend Anastasia's, I would love to see you add something about the link to aid into it...... oh, and get you a picture uploaded on the forum.... jeez 😁
 
@Dave Marino Thanks for your consideration. Rather than get into another long discussion, I will just note that I don’t think we need the government to protect us from speech whether or not it is from foreign governments or agents. As others have said before, the answer to bad speech, is more speech. It is not registering those that seek to speak. I am 100% with you that the a primary purpose for government is to protect from force, fraud, and theft, but this is not what FARA does.

I’ll work on a photo for the forum.
:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top