Welcome to the Grand Old Party

It seems very odd to me that it is remotely controversial that a private organization should have to defend its right to monitor its membership. Every organization has a formal or informal mission statement. a reason for being which, in most cases defines it, becomes its reputation or, if you will, its brand. When you hear the name Salvation Army, a certain image comes to mind. Maybe it’s the band or bell ringers at Christmas but the name means something very distinct and very real. What then if the Salvation Army was infiltrated by imposters? Individuals, who, for their own selfish purposes, presented themselves to the World as members of the Salvation Army but who shared few, if any, of its core concepts. Who could be potentially harmed by that action? Well, if the imposters operated under the good name of the Salvation Army but for purposes contrary to its core mission those actions would certainly harm the organization. However, since the general public often interacts with the Salvation Army by supporting their charitable and social goals, the greatest harm could be to the public itself. If one contributes to the imposters because they are using the name of the Salvation Army but are directing those contributions to purposes in direct conflict with the understood mission of the organization, the harm is very real, very quantifiable and certainly immoral. Who among us would not support the right of the group to ferret out the imposters and expose them by whatever means possible?

The Grand Ol' Party in Wyoming is facing a similar conundrum. The party has been infiltrated by politicians who are using the reputation, the good name, the legacy, the brand of the Republican Party but do not necessarily share its core values which are very plainly enumerated in its guiding document, the Party Platform. The platform is the mission statement of the group. It defines what it means to be a Republican. If you are a voter, there is no compulsion for you to ascribe to the entire platform. In fact, to VOTE Republican you only have to agree on those platform positions that are dearest to you. If you are a candidate, however, and label yourself a Republican but do NOT embrace most of the platform, it could be suggested that you are committing a fraud on the voters and are conceivably guilty of a trademark infringement of the highest order. How so? Well, if the platform defines the label (Republican) and if you do not share those beliefs nor intend to further them in office yet you use the label to get yourself elected, the judgement is clear. You are an imposter, a counterfeit and should face the consequences of your actions. But let’s say that that doesn't happen. That there are in fact zero consequences. You get elected, you vote and many of your actions are contrary to the platform that got you elected. What can the Party do about it? Under existing law, not much. Sure, the Party can grouse, complain, write op-eds, go on podcasts, try to field challengers more aligned with the Party's goals, etc.

But all that takes time and money. Incumbents of any stripe are hard to beat. In the meantime, the imposter(s) continue to use the name for their own purposes and the damage to the brand and to the Party goals continues to mount up. But again, what if the law was challenged? or changed. After all, there is only one other State (North Dakota) with such an arcane law on the books put there long ago by those who wanted to protect the status quo. Maybe it is time for a change. Recently, at the state convention in Douglas, the State party chair announced that the State Republican Party would seek relief from the Courts, not to limit membership, not to apply litmus tests or loyalty oaths but for the simple right to endorse candidates during the primary season to let the public know who truly represents the values as codified in the Platform, a platform that is continually reviewed, debated and eventually adopted by the membership as a whole. Doesn't sound too revolutionary, does it?  Sounds more like a public service. If voting is what defines democracy and is the right of every citizen, then the more informed the voter the more secure the democracy.