Gary Johnson

Another Johnson/Weld SuperPAC Announced, Run By Weld Associates and GOP Operatives


The Boston Globe, from Massachusetts where William Weld governed as a Republican in the 1990s, reports on a bunch of Weld pals and former GOP operatives planning to support his Libertarian campaign for the vice presidency (along with Gary Johnson as president).

Weld/Mintz Levin law firm

The folks running this new "Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative" PAC (named after the favorite way that Johnson/Weld like to explain libertarianism) are from Weld's own Boston lobbying firm. They plan to raise money for TV ads for the Libertarian Party campaign. Their founder is R.J. Lyman, the senior v-p from Weld's old firm ML Strategies. Lyman used to work in Weld's gubernatorial administration. They have not yet announced any specific money sources or goals.

Major advisers to the PAC include former John McCain general counsel Trevor Potter and Matt Sanderson, who has worked in the past for McCain, a Romney PAC in 2012, and as counsel to Rand Paul's Republican presidential bid this season. (They also both helped Steven Colbert with his comedic SuperPAC in 2011.)

Weld, the Globe reports:

began working through his contact list last week, reaching out to potential donors and eyeing the hiring of fund-raising consultants. He said he enjoys the work, describing himself as "back in my briar patch."

The Globe also highlighted a policy gap on taxes between top and bottom of the L.P. ticket:

Johnson believes in the "fair tax," a national consumption tax that would replace federal income and payroll taxes. Weld, for his part, believes in the "flat tax" and called Johnson's preference "an awfully regressive way to run a railroad."

I reported on two previously announced SuperPACs intending to help Johnson/Weld, Matt Kibbe's AlternativePAC and Ed Crane's PurplePAC.

NEXT: The Post-Orlando Trump/Clinton Crackdown

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. That Johnson is picking up some grease!

    1. It is the job of Party members to make sure that the money is useful and not destructive. Those who complain that moderate Republicans are attempting to take over the party are failing to heed the wisdom of Tuckers address to the convention. Namely, the Reagen coalition is dead, and if the fascists have excommmunicated the classical liberals from their midsts, then so too are the “constitutionalists”, and those people who while they believe in a robust state do not believe in a command economy. If we are to become the new party home for the now unaffiliated broad liberal movement, we must understand people will come to our banner from all extremes of the spectrum. Whether these late comers are reformed statists, enlightened liberal democrats, or tolerant free market capitalists it does not matter, they can all be Libertarians now. Just as for years the most famous champion of Liberty was a card carrying republican congressman, if the tables were bare and new parties were formed from scratch, would the majority join a Johnson-Weld banner or a Trump-Hillary banner? I hope the answer is obvious. What do the old parties have on thier side now but inertia and entrenchment? If we stand united in Liberty, the progress of our enemies shall grind to a halt, and thier bulwarks crumble atop the shift sands of time.

      1. A big tent LP? A serious political campaign organization? Perish the thought! The LP must remain a debating society for libertarian purists and various kooks and nuts who like to strip down to their jock straps when they’re not using Robert’s Rules of Order to bring the business of a convention to a standstill.

  2. Boston Globe, from Massachusetts where William Weld governed as a Republican in the 1990s, reports on a bunch of Weld pals and former GOP operatives planning to support his Libertarian campaign for the vice presidency (along with Gary Johnson as president).

    Just,what we need! A bunch of New England Republicans (read: big government douchebags) throwing their support behind the libertarians because Trump took their ball away from them.

    Looking,into my rear-facing crystal ball, I distinctly remember this being almost exactly what happened with the tea party being co-opted by the GOP establishment dickheads.

    1. Serious question, how else are they going to generate the money they need to launch any kind of credible campaign? Is it at least possible that this could be the enemy of my enemy will give me money to hurt my enemy?

      1. I’m hoping it turns into a three-way cluster fuck. And if Bernie goes independent and Jill Stein gets some traction the cluster fucking can go five ways.

        1. Six ways if you count Darrell Castle (Constitution Party), and I’m still not sure why Reason hasn’t talked to him.

          1. The more the merrier!

          2. Constitution Party

            Warty keeps talking about it as though its the proper option for discriminating yokels everywhere

            what’s their particular distinction from the GOP-lite iteration of the LP currently on offer? They’re “smaller government”? Less interested in weed and compulsory-baking-legislation?


            The party believes that the United States is a Christian state founded on the basis of the Bible and that jurisprudence should be restored to what the party claims is its “Biblical foundations”.[15] Its critics have described it?and its predecessor, the U.S. Taxpayers Party?as a theocratic and dominionist party.[16][17]

            Why, that DOES sound appealing. I’ve often thought of entering the Priesthood

            1. I like to make fun of them because Eddie has such a hardon for them. Don’t try so hard.

            2. *actually reads Gilmore’s post*

              Wait, what what what now? Eddie can’t be this much of a shitheel.

              1. Oh, was it Eddie? I thought you had mentioned them first.

                I was really just angling to make a caddyshack reference. I was hoping someone would tell me i couldn’t vote for them if i admitted i was Roman Catholic.

                they seem to score well on the ‘small govt’ and ‘non-interventionist’ angles. but then everyone on the Right pretends to care about that sort of thing, just as how Democrats pretend to be all about helping the poor and hating corporations.

                1. So that’s what happened to the Rushdoony-ites!

              2. I don’t know what flavor of Protestant they are, but they’re a Protestant party.

                If the Flying Spaghetti Monster Party took the same pro-Constitution attitude, and I believed they were serious, I’d vote for their guy.

                Sadly, the FSM party would be more likely to be cheerleading for Hillary or Stein. 🙁

            3. The Constitution Party’s 2008 Ron Paul-endorsed candidate Chuck Baldwin was more libertarian than the LP’s candidate, Bob Barr.

              Chuck Baldwin on individual liberties

              If we can slash our government back to what it was at its founding (or more) I don’t give a fuck if they pave the streets with 10 Commandments- engraved stones.

              1. You’re not going to impose a *purity test* on the Constitution Party, are you?

                I mean, why do you want to nitpick every little thing?

                (non-sarcastically, the candidate, Darrell Castle, said some nice things and some weird things and short of voting for a virtual-reality construct of my ideal positions, he seems to be as close as I can get this year to someone representing my views. Even if they are, regrettably, an Evangelical Protestant party.

                1. Castle declaration on the Orlando attack

                  A Trumpish call for an immigration pause pending better procedures.

                  Then this:

                  “Well, what do we have a 2nd Amendment for, I ask you, if not for this? Now, let me point out to you that it is for each of us, our personal responsibility, to protect our own lives and our family’s. The local police are brave men and woman and they are more than happy to come and risk their lives and even give their lives to clean up the bodies after the attack occurred. But, they cannot be there when the attack happens to prevent it. That is up to us. It is up to each one of us to defend ourselves and our families, so take that for what it is worth folks but defend your lives. Be prepared because this government will not do it. They will not defend you so be prepared to defend your own life and the lives of your family folks. At least that is the way I see it.”

                  1. In this podcast, Darrell Castle gives what I would call a Shattnerian defense of original intent.

                    Shattnerian refers to the style, not the substance.

            4. Are you … Roman Catholic?

              1. Sure, but I would hope that we got the OMG A CATHOLIC PRESIDENT THEY LIKE US THEY REALLY LIKE US thing out of our system in the 1960s and are now free to vote for someone of any religion, or none, so long as they’re genuinely for the Constitution.

                1. Oh, Caddyshack quote. I was too slow to get it.

      2. Do you really believe that there are not strings attached to accepting money from these people? You make a deal with the devil, you’re going to pay up with your soul.

        1. I’d like to fantasize that the money people in question would rather see a libertarian in the white house than Trump or Clinton on principle, but I can’t really make the leap. I’m just resigned that this is the best that can be done given the current circumstances and not let the perfect or pure be the enemy of the good.

          1. The money people are trying to get Hillary Clinton elected so they can reclaim the Republican Party from non-Republican Donald J Trump. The “real Republicans” have been forced, by unfortunate circumstances and insubordinate voters, to run as the “Libertarian Party” this election cycle.

        2. Strings? Don’t you have to get elected for strings to matter? How can you claim they will never get elected (you’re probably right) and then also claim they shouldn’t take $$ there will be strings attached when elected? Can’t have it both ways.

      3. I don’t want them to generate money to launch a credible campaign if it means abandoning libertarian principles.

        I’ve already seen that happen at reason. And it hasn’t been pretty.

        1. I understand, and share some of your reservations, I just don’t know how else the LP is going to move out of the single digits any other way. The libertarian worldview faces an increasingly socialist electorate, and without some kind of come to god moment I can’t see a real opportunity for us to move forward in a pure form.

          1. Then we need to abandon the whole fucking thing and buy an island or Venezuela when it goes tits up and just move there, take it over and leave each other alone.

        2. Stick to libertarian principles. Vote Trump.

          1. The real estate guy?

          2. Hey, at least Trump’s not a Republican. Those assholes had to take over the LP just so they could get on the ballot.

            1. SIV, you are right, he’ s not a Republican. He’s a democrat.

        3. Johnson and Weld are a million times closer to libertarian principles than Hillary or Trump. If one is inclined to vote at all there really is no other sane choice.

          1. Johnson and Weld are a million times closer to libertarian principles than Hillary or Trump

            What’s a million times zero again? i was never strong at math.

        4. The Republican Party has been lost so the leadership has seized control of the Libertarian Party to try and get it back.

    2. Yeah, they got hijacked by Sarah Plain and Glenn Beck. Never go full on Glenn Beck.

      Sounds like the LP will be hijacked by people who aren’t as religious but more statist.

      Some writers here don’t seem to think there could be anything negative about us getting into bed with people who are everything that we are supposed to be against.

    3. “Money is the mother’s milk of politics” — Jesse [Big Daddy] Unruh (D), speaker of the CA Assembly [1961-69]

      Given that libertarians pretty fundamentally hate politics I guess it shouldn’t be surprising to see disdain for it’s life force cropping up.

    4. A bunch of New England Republicans (read: big government douchebags) throwing their support behind the libertarians because Trump took their ball away from them

      The world could use a few more Sununus.

      1. Yeah, of all the universes where the Libertarian party becomes relevant, the ones where it’s co-opted by moderate Republicans aren’t even close to the worst.

        1. I wouldn’t even call John E. Sununu “moderate”.

          1. All I remember about him is that he has a great name. And possibly that SNL made fun of him?

            1. Former NH gov, Bush 41 chief of staff, and feisty.

                1. Ah, my miscue. The son who lost to Shaheen.

                  1. Sununu, Shaheen, Hassan…we need to start calling this place New Levant.

                    1. But you coast is small, cold and filled with glacially deposited rock.

                    2. And full of icky yankeeeeees! Ooogiebooogieboogie!

    5. But isn’t that just what the rebranding of the LIbertarian Party calls for – socially liberal, fiscally conservative people?

      If the Libertarian party is going to relax its principles to try to appeal to a broader base, don’t; be surprised when the broader base isn’t particularly libertarian.

  3. RE: Another Johnson/Weld SuperPAC Announced, Run By Weld Associates and GOP Operatives

    Johnson believes in the “fair tax,” a national consumption tax that would replace federal income and payroll taxes. Weld, for his part, believes in the “flat tax” and called Johnson’s preference “an awfully regressive way to run a railroad.”

    The consumption tax would be preferable to the flat tax because it would only be a matter of time before the socialist turds in the Politburo and the Soviet Supreme Senate would raise its rates and thus becoming another income tax along with all the horrors that go with it.
    Picking a former republican to be in our beloved Libertarian Party is proving to be a mistake.
    Is it too late to get someone else who is more in tune with the LP political philosophy?

    1. They’re not getting the 16th Amendment repealed.

      1. Why would they want to do that? Government can’t have enough revenue streams.

        1. No way I’m instituting a consumption tax without repealing the income tax.

          1. Ted S. 2016!

          2. GayJay wouldn’t take that pledge.

            1. “GayJay wouldn’t take that pledge”

              He has, on multiple occasions.
              [rolls eyes]
              Hi SIV! Heard someone say Johnson and you came a’runnin’ frothing at the mouth, huh? Be serious with us, you are actually GJ’s ex-wife aren’t you? I mean, that would make sense at least

          3. The 16th amendment isn’t like the 18th. It didn’t make an income tax mandatory, just permitted. In fact it’s really just a clarif’n of power Congress already had to lay indirect taxes w/o apportionment.

      2. Even if it was repealed, does anyone think the SC would rule a Congress passed income tax unconstitutional? That ship sailed long ago.

        1. Of course not. According to Brushaber, the 16th amendment was practically superfluous. As long as the tax on income is construed as indirect (which there is justif’n to do), it was permitted already w/o apportionment. And what if a future court ruled it a direct tax? You think they wouldn’t apportion it if Congress wanted it?

          1. I don’t think they’d do even those convolutions. Just say it’s commerce power and carry on.

  4. Curiouser and curiouser ….

  5. I predict Johnson/Weld is gonna kick ass. Trump and Hillary will destroy each other, I hope the LP candidates don’t descend to their level. No need to, and little indication so far they they will. Just stick to the message – FCSL. People will love it and who cares what the “Libertarian” fringe says. These were the people who supported McAfee and Sharpe!

      1. Those were the days.

  6. Uhh, has this been covered?

    Gunman Omar Mateen visited gay nightclub a dozen times before shooting, witness says

    FORT PIERCE ? At least four regular customers at the Orlando gay nightclub where a gunman killed 49 people said Monday that they had seen the killer, Omar Mateen, there before.

    “Sometimes he would go over in the corner and sit and drink by himself, and other times he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent,” said Ty Smith, who also uses the name Aries.…..story.html

    1. he would get so drunk he was loud and belligerent,

      Guess he was a little selective about the tenets of his religious faith.

    2. He went by the name of Mo Slim.

      1. This whole thing reeks of latent homosexuality/self hatred. Methinks he either went through with a homosexual act and freaked out or got spurned by a gay man when he tried to act on his urges. The Islamic angle seems like a cover or excuse for a fucking psychotic lashing out by a pathetic murderous coward

    3. When he gets to heaven he’ll tell Allah it was all part of the plan to infiltrate the den of inequity. Including the poppers and restroom stall blowjobs.

    4. So he was gay and hated himself for that?

      1. Unfortunately, it looks like that’s part of the story.

          1. Do you think people should indulge in self-hatred?

            1. Let rephrase that. Do you think people should lash out from self-hatred?

              1. I went from “Yes” to “No”.

                1. Well, again, Mateen was just the gay Eliot Rodgers. Entitlement and self-loathing is a heady cocktail.

            2. Do you think people should indulge in self-hatred?

              He seemed to be pretty lousy person, so if he had to hate someone, i suspect “himself” was probably the most convenient target.

      2. So two of the worst attacks on gays in this country were carried out by gays? I think the answer is obvious.

        1. what was the other one?

          1. When RuPaul bombed an LPGA event.

          2. I read in an earlier thread that the Happyland fire was gay on gay violence. Looking at Wiki it turns out it was not. My bad.

            1. You might be thinking of the Upstairs Lounge arson.


          seriously, i mean come on. can’t a guy take advantage of drinks specials??

      3. Repression is both powerful and pathetic.

      4. Well I won that bet with my wife.

        The other half of the bet is whether or not he was abused by an Afghani family member.

    5. He must have been getting up his rage to the point where he could do something so insane.

      1. Dude was just the gay Eliot Rodgers.

    6. The only people that really hate gays (to the point of wanting to kill them, not simply decline to bake for them) are people who are gay but don’t want to admit it and so they take out their frustration….

      Islam is a great example – homosexuality is really common in most the places it controls, not just the middle east but Afghanistan. But they don’t want to admit they are gay, so they made a big show of killing them.

    7. Actually, as far as “psychological profiling” goes, the thing there that seems to belie the ISIS-ishness of the whole motivation… is the fact that he was drinking. Homosexuality is a sin in Islam, but his attitude towards sin itself seems…a little too convenient and selective.

      While many people seemed to suggest he was a hate-filled douchebag, no one seemed ever to suggest he was ‘crazy islamic’ at any point. He never grew a beard. he wasn’t praying 5 times a day. his wife seemed pretty cosmopolitan (and cute!).

      the “violently repressed gay” thing seems pretty plausible. I suppose at some point someone will testify to some failed tryst w. the dude.

      1. Eh, Mohammad Atta spent his last few days on Earth getting drunk at strip clubs.

        1. yeah, but I think that was rationalized in a more strictly Taqiyya sense. for years prior he’d been a practicing moozie, no? I seem to recall it was the case. As were a lot of his hijacker buddies who also partied pretty fast and loose before the event.

          from the sound of the article above, Omar was at least a “dozen” times. which strikes me as a bit excessive merely from the POV of “Pre-murder-suicide”-drinking, or simply to ‘case the joint’.

          “Dozen” to me suggests he was thinking about wtf he really wanted.

          Another Pulse regular, Kevin West, told the Los Angeles Times that Mateen messaged him on and off for a year using a gay chat app.

          1. Oh, no doubt Mateen’s actions stemmed from his lack of ability to deal with the fact that he liked dudes. I’m just saying that many of these types are, in fact, hypocrites. Also, there is a problem in that like many people who face crises in their lives, Atta, Mateen, etc. “found religion”. which to a Christian might mean “go to the mall church every week, stop cussin, and buy all of Amy Grant’s albums” or to a Buddhist “become obnoxiously vegetarian”..but thanks to a thick soup of ideology and history to more than a handful of Muslims it means this.

      2. Omar was a big cop wannabe too. A Gay, Muslim, failed-cop.

      3. The 9/11 hijackers loved booze and strippers, didn’t they?

        1. The lesson to take away from this is that we all love booze and strippers.

          1. She seems to be an Israeli alum of a Russian slut school. I’m in love.

          2. Truly, you’re doing Allah’s work.

            I also like the fact that she kept attempting to recover up her booty out of some sense of misplaced modesty.

          3. I feel like that instrument is talking to me.

          4. Also, great time travel. 2015 twerking to a 1990’s song.

        2. Was it they loved it or they were itrying to intentionally act unreligious?

  7. Imagine that you wanted to take over a country. So you start immigrating to that country and when you have sufficient numbers, you suddenly have an epiphany. The citizens of that country are well armed, so to just start a civil war would be suicide. But what if you knew that if you just killed a lot of citizens with the right weapon, that countries leaders would disarm the citizenry for you? That country must have some pretty fucking stupid or traitorous leaders, But you don’t care, because they’re going to render your enemy helpless, for you, you don’t have to do anything! Once the citizens are disarmed, you attack. Then after you win, you take care of the cowardly leaders and set up your own country.

    1. Imagine you are lazy and want other people to do all your stuff for you. Here’s an idea: go to a foreign land and ‘buy’ their people from other people. Ship them back to your home country and make them work for you. Then sit back on your porch and enjoy a mint julep. Now what happens if uppity do-gooders tell you you can’t do it any more? Well shit, first see if you can get your neighbors to fight them off for you. If all else fails, give it up and try another strategy: start a drug war in another country and when the refugees flee to your country for safety, hire them as cheap labor. And if they grow too numerous and their kids start doing better than your own in school, why, just accuse them of raping you and stealin yer jerbz and planning an ‘invasion’ all along. And then kick them all out plus you can do midnight panty raids on them, it will be great fun! And then find a reality tv star to start up a ‘war on terror’ and hire a few people for agitprop. You get the picture.

          1. Don’t have enough money to make another promoted comment?

              1. I’ll throw you a few shekels

                1. Is that the going price for betrayal?

      1. Your newsletter: Can you get it mailed outside of the asylum?

        1. O alienista – the inmates are now in control.

    2. Arabs are fucking morons who mostly just worship strong-men*

      (*homoerotic overtones intentional)

      yeah yeah, i’m aware this guy wasn’t “arab”. Bonus points to anyone who spots news-articles claiming he is, though. I still see people in newspapers referring to Afghanistan as “middle east”. Retarded.

      complete side note = I think the dude’s dad probably knew what the score was. as in, “my repressed-gay son committed act of murder/suicide”. Maybe not ‘in advance’ exactly what he planned to do, but i suspect he was hip to the guy’s problems.

      1. His dad is the root of the problem.

      2. I still see people in newspapers referring to Afghanistan as “middle east”. Retarded.

        I don’t think there’s always agreement about what countries should be included in the area.

  8. Weld is right to contest Gary’s national sales tax. Gary is right to question Weld’s flat tax

    Both of these ideas are tired!!!

    They show a lack of knowledge or curiosity about the history of the 16th Amendment and the US INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX.

    They do not understand that the income tax is the American version of the British public office duty, an excise tax laid on federal privileges.

    Since the Constitutional only allows for taxation on that which the federal government creates, or allows to exist, it cannot be a tax on the inalienable right to labor, in what are known as occupations of common right. (McCullough v Maryland)

    The question of whether the income tax is voluntary or mandatory is answered as King Solomon would-It is mandatory on privileges, voluntary on rights.

    Why threaten the left with absurd proposals that you are going to abolish their precious graduated progressive income tax, when all you have to do is clarify the scope of the 16th Amendment, and the correct history of the tax?

    Why not say you want the IRS to obey the law, and you have a right to the fruits of your labor in a free market?

    Brian D used to write about the income tax movement, he has refused to investigate Pete Hendrickson and his wife Doreen’ insights into the tax that are contained in his book “Cracking the Code” and his website (add + IRS so you wont google a lot of sites about the 1930’s movie)

    1. Your blog is hilarious. That trenchant analysis is why (from your landing page) “Irwin Schiff passed away in federal prison last October.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.