Well folks, I think with this recent hatchet job post against Michael Davidson and other comments emanating from the burgeoning CRNC blogosphere it is time for a bit of a reality check of facts agreed upon by, I believe, ALL sides.

1. This election is important because Paul Gourley and Michael Davidson have substancially different views on how the CRNC should be run.
2. Response Dynamics Inc, the CRNCs old fundraising firm used unethical techniques to raise money
3. Paul Gourley signed the RDI letters knowingly (Gourley camp says this is a virtue)
4. This is a media issue that could severely hurt College Republicans across the country (Thus Chairman Hoplin’s condemnation of people “blowing the whistle” on the CRNC behavior)

From these facts alone one can deduce that Paul Gourley’s ascension to CRNC Chairman would lead to a likely two-year paralysis of the organization under the weight of the scandal. Whether or not it is Paul’s “fault” or not, he is now inexorably tied to those letters and one can little doubt that those questions will be brought up in any media interview he does.

For me this election is about one thing and really one thing only: ethics. I think that the CRNC has bungled badly a lot of different aspects of their operation just take a peek at their finance statements and the fact they FAILED to file a statement for the second half of 2003, and their statement for the first half of the year was filed months late on 7 Feb 2005. Yet, in the end, someone has to be held to account and it would seem to me the treasurer whose job it is to oversee the finances, Paul Gourley, would be the logical person.

Will it be the end of the world if Paul is elected? No. But it will signal that the CRs are not serious about true reform and the forces of careerism have won out over principle.

Well I attended the panel discussion put on by the Advisory Committee to the Internet Caucus. It confirmed all my fears, and assauged none of my doubts.

The panelists were Chairman Scott Thomas of the FEC, Mike Krempasky of Red State, and John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. The moderator was Michael Cornfield of the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

The one major concern that this whole panel raised for me is that no one, not even the FEC Chairman really had a grasp on what exactly the proposed rules will do. The rule proposal is set to come out in the Federal Register around April 4th, and then there will be a 60 day window for comment on them. Chairman Thomas seemed to be generally interested and concerned in the process, and I believe he has good intentions in this, but if he doesn’t even know what effect these rules will have then we must all be very concerned.

Mike Krempasky did a good job pointing out a lot of the murky areas that are likely to pop up due to the implications of the law. I think in the end the only real solution to the problem is the repeal of McCain-Feingold (a terribly unconstitutional bill that should have never been signed… but I digress), but that is unlikely to happen. As such, Chairman Thomas repeatedly stated that begining on the 4th the FEC would be looking for written comment from as many qualified peopel as possible. I would encourage all bloggers to participate. More details as they come in.

I will be attending a panel discussion by the Internet Advisory Caucus on the FEC & The Internet. Mike Krempasky of Red State will be on the panelists along with the Chairman of the FEC. I will post about it once I get back. Should be interesting.

A must see… here.