An out of state student libertarian group alleged by critics to have broken campaign finance laws in at least one state has apparently been going door to door in District 6 promoting the candidacy of former Libertarian Party chairman Aaron Aylward:
Distributing a flyer with the disclaimer “paid for by Make Liberty Win,” it also claims to not be authorized by Aylward.. despite using a family photo of the candidate on the front.
An earlier flyer was also distributed by the group:
As noted, this isn’t the first time the group has come to public attention, as in Idaho, 5 candidates have filed campaign finance complaints with the Idaho Secretary of State’s office alleging the same group has broken campaign finance rules.
Make Liberty Win, which is affiliated with and largely financially supported by the libertarian student activist group Young Americans for Liberty, has spent about $99,000 on mailers and phone calls supporting candidates in Idaho this primary season according to campaign finance reports, much of it in eastern Idaho.
and..
The group did file a required disclosure with the state listing the people and groups who have contributed more than $500 to the group. However, it does not identify the individual supporters of Young Americans for Liberty or Grassroots Victory, two groups identified as donors to Make Liberty Win.
The group has also reportedly participated in robocalls into the District to promote Alyward’s candidacy. Which is all very curious for a candidate claiming affiliation with the Republican Party.
As I’d noted previously, Aylward had ran before two years ago as a Libertarian, and just in 2019 served as the State Libertarian Party’s chairman:
As recently as October, the website noted the following in the bio of their state chair:
Over the years, Aaron has been in a number of political parties, starting as a Democrat while in High School, a Republican during the years that Ron Paul, and his son, Rand, were running for President, and now in the Libertarian party.
Alyward happily admitted at the time that he’s bounced from political group to political group with no conviction, announcing he’s been a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian… and now supposedly he’s back to Republican as he attempts to win public office.
Except resources affiliated with Libertarian politics are still strongly backing his campaign.
You see, you gotta stick with what you believe in.
He is a cleaner cut Libertarian than my good friend Bob, who at least is consistently against the man, even when he’s working as a corporate narc for the man.
The Covids have even taken a bit out of Bob’s hot dog, on that end.
Wolf in sheep’s clothing
I would vote for him no matter what party he belongs to.
He goes from chair of the Libertarian Party to run as a Republican. That does not look very good for him or his Libertarian Party. Libertarians such as this candidate should focus on building up their own party
I agree, but he probably has a better chance winning as a Republican. Pierre is full of Republicrats. Would be nice to have some Republitarians out there.
So does Gideon Oakes and/or the Libertarian Party disavow him as he is running as a Republican and left the L party?
Gideon is running as a Libertarian. I can’t speak for the registered Libertarians, but I wouldn’t disavow anyone.
I don’t see that disavowment is in order as Mr. Aylward already left the Libertarian Party to join the GOP. (A move I’m sure he may regret with the warm welcome Mr. Powers has been giving him.) We don’t need to disavow him any more than any other Republican with “small-L” libertarian leanings.
We would, of course, rather have him back in our ranks, just as we invite all whose goal is a world set free in our lifetimes and who believe in accomplishing that goal without the use of force.
Good post, Gideon. I don’t dispute a word of it. But something omitted deserves comment. As you’ve often said, Republicans and Libertarians diverge on key philosophical points. Despite areas of congruence, (e.g. protecting 2nd Amendment rights, lowering taxes) these two blocs are not ideologically interchangeable. Hence, when your party’s leading officer (State Chair) switches his allegiance from the Libertarian Party to the Republican Party, it signals one of two things. Either he’s changed his mind –decided that, on issues where principles conflict, the Republican stance is correct and the Libertarian stance incorrect — or else he’s donned a disguise, hoping to fool SD conservatives into supporting him. If he remains Libertarian in his heart but masquerades as Republican in public, he’s inauthentic & duplicitous. Voters deserve to know each candidates’ core values.
Perhaps Aylward underwent a genuine damascene conversion. It’s been known to happen. 😁 But that so many Libertarians support his ostensibly Republican candidacy implies he’s a phony, a Trojan Horse built to a smuggle Libertarian policies (e.g. drug legalization) into the legislature under a Republican veneer.
If Aaron has rejected his former Libertarian outlook and embraced Republican values, he should annunciate the policies and priorities on which you and he now disagree.
“Voters deserve to know each candidates’ core values.”
You’re absolutely right! Voters SHOULD get to know a candidate’s core values before marking their ballot. Otherwise, they might end up with someone who doesn’t protect 2nd Amendment rights, such as the Republican senator who sponsored a Red Flag law this past session.
They might even end up with someone who doesn’t believe in lowering taxes, such as the Republican majority in the 2015 legislature plus the Republican governor who teamed up to pass $85 million in tax hikes with SB1. Don’t forget 2016’s IM 23, which would have raised an additional $35 million in taxes on smokers and retailers… also sponsored by a Republican.
Look, I can certainly understand your concern for platform purity. In fact, back in my GOP days, I was the one who successfully brought forth from the convention floor the platform plank which calls upon Republican candidates and officeholders to read and familiarize themselves with the state platform (now Plank 5.12 in its current form). So please know it’s with the highest level of respect that I say a little introspection and house cleaning is in order before allegations of “Trojan Horses” are leveled. The gates are open and Troy is already burning.
I will not speak for Mr. Aylward, but I will speak for myself. The two-party system is a failed experiment that has resulted in special interests and partisan politics being put ahead of economic freedoms and individual liberty. The People are starting to wake up to that fact. According to Gallup, 57% of Americans see the need for a strong third party. That is why I choose to keep working to build the LPSD and the national LP. To borrow from JFK, I do so, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit a position by charging its adherents with hypocrisy but never directly refutes or disproves the underlying argument.
You seem to be saying “Aylwards may be a hypocrite but whatabout others who are equally flawed?”
I wouldn’t characterize that as a successful or persuasive defense, but I’m just one citizen. My opinion counts for little. The jurors will decide next week.
Gideon wrote: “Don’t forget 2016’s IM 23, which would have raised an additional $35 million in taxes on smokers and retailers… also sponsored by a Republican.”
Although Mr. Mickelson backed that measure, I feel like the the SDGOP opposed it. The Republicans whom I know spoke and voted against it. But that’s merely anecdotal. Mr. Oakes, do you feel the Republican Party supported that measure, or do you think Mark went against the grain? I’m getting old. My memory isn’t quite as sharp as once it was.
Libertarians is just another word for Losers—they never win ANY races anywhere; you are throwing your vote away
With all due respect, it was not meant as whataboutism. I was simply making the point that party labels should not be relied upon as a substitute for researching a candidate’s positions. That’s all. 👍
Fair point. Voters should research candidates’ positions. But each candidate has an ethical duty to announce and publicize his or her positions, especially when they conflict with the party platform. If Aylward supports drug legalization (or, if you prefer, drug “decriminalization”) he should make that case loud and proud, not spark up his lamp & conceal it under a basket.