Cuccinelli wants higher candidate fees for conventions
By JR Hoeft | Thursday, September 23rd, 2010 | Politics
WaPo’s Virginia Politics blog posted that Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wants candidates to pay a higher fee in order to participate in conventions, which helps defray the costs and actually encourage more conventions.
Cuccinelli’s political director Noah Wall attended a meeting of the Virginia Republican State Central Committee Saturday to encourage the proposal, calling for gubernatorial candidates to pay up to $50,000 for a spot at the party’s nominating convention.
He suggested up to $25,000 for lieutenant governor and attorney general candidates, as well as fees for delegates attending the convention.
In an interview, Cuccinelli said higher fees would help defray convention costs for the party, ensuring conventions are a financially viable option for the party.
Cuccinelli made several arguments to support his position for higher fees and maintaining conventions:
- They will become a thing of the past if the party can’t find a better way to pay for them
- Conventions help build party enthusiasm and connect with grassroots activists most likely to become campaign volunteers
- Keeps the public from having to pay for the party’s nominating process
- Prevents Democratic crossover voters from affecting electing outcomes
- Actually costs less for candidates to pay the higher fee and compete in a convention (citing that he, Brownlee, and Foster spent about a million altogether to fight for the nomination at the convention, where Steve Baril and Bob McDonnell spent $5 million in the 2005 AG primary battle)
“It may seem counterintuitive but charging significant filing fees makes conventions more affordable and therefore more likely and therefore makes lower dollar candidates more viable,” Cuccinelli said.
Of course, what Cuccinelli isn’t saying is that it also makes conservative candidates much more viable.
Bob Marshall lost his 2008 senate-bid by effectively one delegate. Marshall lost 5222.73 to 5156.97 (about 63 votes). However, had one delegate from a region that was representing several voters switched from Gilmore to Marshall (let’s say that delegate represented 32 voters, which was not out of the ordinary at the convention), then Marshall’s your nominee.
And, in Cuccinelli’s own convention battle against John Brownlee, it was a sea of yellow:

Obviously, if you are Ken Cuccinelli, who is very popular amongst conservatives, but perhaps not so much amongst moderates and liberals, you want a convention if you’re seeking higher office.
For ideological purity, conventions are certainly the way to go.
Tags:
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.








Comments
3 Responses to "Cuccinelli wants higher candidate fees for conventions"
[...] the fees charged to candidates who wish to be put before the Republican nominating convention (and check out J.R.’s post on it here). Right now, the filing fee is set at 4% of the salary of the office being sought. Last year in [...]
Won’t this simply make it harder for candidates who aren’t rolling in money to compete?
Not if there is a limit, James. What JR didn’t really get into here, is that the debate is over whether there should be (a) UNLIMITED authority for state central to set astronomical filing fees (conceivably hundreds of thousands) or (b) whether the fees should be just enough to cover convention costs, or whether (c) there should be minimal to zero filing fees and advertising + delegate filing fees should be used to used to pay for the conventions.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.