Coordinating Committee on-line vote minutes, March 12-18th, 2012

While the leadership organs of the GPCA do not take a partisan position on who should be on the party’s ballot, the party has a responsibility to its more than 115,000 members to ensure the integrity of the process of how candidates are placed there.

As you may know, access to the GPCA’s presidential primary ballot is determined by a process that involves the California Elections code, GPCA Rules and Procedures and GPUS Rules and Procedures. Since the Barr campaign was not eligible to apply for GPCA General Assembly recommendation to the Secretary of State to appear on the GPCA’s presidential primary ballot, because Ms. Barr was a member of the Democratic Party at the time, we understand that in order to be placed upon the GPCA’s ballot, the Barr campaign instead sought GPUS recognition.

To the degree that the GPCA accedes part of the discretion over who appears on its presidential primary election ballot to the GPUS, it does so based in part upon the belief that candidates seeking GPUS recognition will operate honestly, transparently and in good faith to meet and not evade all requirements necessary to receive such recognition.  Towards that end,  we understand that in response to a question from a GPUS Presidential Campaign Support Committee (PCSC) member on a January 31st PCSC conference call, Eric Weinrib advised the committee that the Barr campaign had not filed any campaign fundraising disclosures with the FEC as of January 31st, 2011.

We also understand that the alternative method of providing verifiable evidence that the GPUS’ $5,000 fundraising requirement had been met without self-financing by the candidate has not been provided to the PCSC. We are concerned that in the absence of this necessary documentation from your campaign, that access to the GPCA’s presidential primary ballot line was obtained without compliance with GPUS Rules and Procedures, and hence unfairly compared to other candidates.

Given this concern,  the GPCA requests that you provide answers to the following questions by signed affidavit to the GPCA co-coordinators by midnight West Coast time on Thursday, March 22nd:

- When was the Barr campaign first in contact with PCSC co-chair Tom Yager about re-entering the race to seek the GPUS nomination? Did the Barr campaign ever send a formal letter to Yager in January 2012 stating its intentions to seek GPUS recognition? If so, on what date and can you provide us with a copy?

- What are the names of the major donors ($100 and over) to the Barr campaign as of February 1st?  Has the Barr campaign disclosed the identify of these major donors as of February 1st to any GPUS officials, and if so to whom, and why has it not formally provided documentation of their identities and the amounts of their donations to the PCSC?

- In the Barr campaign's contact with Yager, were strategies discussed to avoid having to comply with the $5000 fundraising requirement by February 1?

- When was the Wells Fargo bank account listed on the deposit slip sent to Tom Yager on February 1st opened and in whose name?

- Why did the affidavit signed by Eric Weinrib on February 4th not contain the information of the Barr campaign’s major donors as of February 1st?

In recognition of the importance GPCA members pay to transparency in campaign financing reporting, we thank you in advance for your answers.

Sincerely,

Sanda Everette, Alex Shantz
Co-coordinators, Coordinating Committee
Green Party of California