Below is a message I sent today to the couple-hundred-sized iCaucus group for the Kansas Third District, and to the couple-hundred-sized separate group for all of Kansas.

Here’s a quick summary of how iCaucus worked (and then didn’t work) for the Kansas Third District:

• Every candidate could participate, if they wanted.  They were required to answer a candidate survey with several dozen questions.
• Any voter — anybody — who lives within the Kansas Third Congressional District could join iCaucus’ Web site, which is similar to Facebook.  It’s free to join, and it only takes a few minutes.  Kansas’ iCaucus leaders pre-approved each name, to ensure that people did, in fact, live within the correct geographic boundaries.
• The main requirement was that voters had to sign up by April 19, 2010.
• At some point after April 19, a “ballot” was Emailed to each voter.  It was designed through free, popular online software called “Survey Monkey.”
• For a candidate to be endorsed, he or she needed to receive 60% or more of the vote on the first ballot.
• On the first try, Patricia Lightner received 63% of the vote; the second place recipient received 16%.
• On May 4, iCaucus endorsed Lightner.
• This morning — Monday, May 10 — Kansas’ iCaucus state-wide director called Lightner to tell her that they were likely going to withdraw their endorsement.  Why?  Because a few people had complained to them that Lightner didn’t follow the rules.  So far, there’s no evidence that this is true.  And as my Email below states, I’m willing to go to bat for Patricia Lightner that, in fact, no improper activity took place.
• Some of the complaints are these:
  • That Lightner campaign manager Mike Pirner voted.  Rules prohibit campaign members from voting; Pirner knows this.  But Pirner didn’t vote.  He did open up an Email from iCaucus, that contained the Third District ballot.  Importantly:  he didn’t request a ballot.  iCaucus leaders shouldn’t have Emailed Pirner, to begin with.  Perhaps somebody in iCaucus was able to digitally “track” who opened up the Email, and who didn’t.  Again, though, Pirner didn’t vote — in hindsight, a question to iCaucus is, Why didn’t you use software that could track who actually voted?
  • That the Lightner campaign encouraged supporters to join iCaucus, and then vote.  The horror!  Of course they did this.  iCaucus explicitly encourages campaigns to do it.
  • That some of Lightner’s votes came from people who signed up “late” — but in this case, “late” means “too close to April 19, though still prior to April 19.”  This is irrelevant, as the deadline was April 19.  It simply does not matter whether or not somebody signed up on April 5, or April 10, or April 16.
  • That some of Lightner’s supporters made up their minds, regarding for whom they would vote, before the April 19 deadline, and/or without viewing the candidate videos, and/or without reading the other candidates’ responses to questionnaires.  Who cares?  The rules didn’t require this; if the rules had required this, they would been unenforceable (not to mention plain dumb) rules.  To be clear:  call me “guilty,” in this matter, as I didn’t read a single candidate questionnaire nor watch a single candidate video, prior to my vote for Patricia Lightner through iCaucus.

All of this is quite unreasonable, it appears.  Below was my message today to iCaucus members.

My name is Benjamin Hodge.  I am a Kansas voter (both in the real sense and also a recent voter for iCaucus), and I’m sending this Email in a public format due to the very timely nature of this topic.

I am troubled by what I’ve been told today by the Lightner for Congress campaign team, in Kansas’ Third Congressional District:

1.  Kansas’ iCaucus leader Larry Halloran called Patricia Lightner today (Monday, May 10) to inform her that Kansas’ iCaucus leaders will be removing/withdrawing their endorsement of Patricia Lightner.  Lightner received the iCaucus endorsement on May 4.  She received 63% of the vote.  My understanding it that the next-highest candidate received 16%.
2.  There is virtually no explicit reason given by Halloran, with regard to why he is withdrawing the Lightner endorsement.
3.  Implicitly, the following appears to be the situation:  Halloran has received complaints about the Lightner campaign’s ethics.  Halloran is acting upon merely a concern that Lightner engaged in improper behavior while getting votes through iCaucus; yet, there is apparently no evidence provided by Halloran nor by the people who are complaining to Halloran.  I’ve been told that Lightner campaign manager Mike Pirner has been accused of voting (which would clearly violate the rules).  I’ve been told that Lightner’s campaign has been accused of paying people to vote.  Yet there’s no evidence for any of this.  Incredibly, I’ve been told that Lightner’s campaign is being criticized for their thoroughly-effective vote-getting activities on iCaucus — in this case, the fault lies not on the Lightner campaign, but on people engaging in bad sportsmanship.
4.  Halloran intends that there NOT be another vote for Kansas’ Third District.
5.  Literally at any minute, the withdrawal of the iCaucus endorsement is likely to become public.
6.  The Lightner campaign didn’t hear about any of this until today, from Larry Halloran.  During the voting process, on May 4 (“endorsement day”), or through May 9, iCaucus under Halloran made no ethics-related comments to Lightner’s campaign.

To be upfront about a few things:
1.  I was a recent iCaucus voter, and I have made it public that I am a Patricia Lightner supporter.  If Halloran follows through with this endorsement withdrawal, I’ll consider his actions to be highly disrespectful to my iCaucus vote.
2.  I am a personal friend of Lightner’s campaign manager Mike Pirner.
3.  I know very little about the inside operations of iCaucus, with regard to how things are done, and in terms of “who does what.”

I am a former state representative, and a former elected trustee of the state’s largest college, and I am willing to put my reputation on the line as I state the following:  the Lightner campaign engaged in absolutely no improper behavior, as they worked to secure the iCaucus endorsement.

The reasons that they won the iCaucus endorsement are simple:  Lightner is a stronger candidate; and, specific to iCaucus, her campaign team out-maneuvered the opposing candidates.  I’ll point you to the following quote, one that is attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “The whole state must be so well organized that every Whig can be brought to the polls. So divide the county into small districts and appoint in each a committee. Make a perfect list of the voters and ascertain with certainty for whom they will vote… Keep a constant watch on the doubtful voters and have them talked to by those in whom they have the most confidence… On Election Day see that every Whig is brought to the polls.”

For those iCaucus members complaining about Lightner’s “methods” at obtaining votes — don’t criticize Lightner, but instead criticize every single elected office-holder, ever.  Indeed, criticize iCaucus’ own efforts at encouraging people to vote, and at encouraging candidates to properly effectively organize a winning iCaucus campaign.

I am a capitalist, which means that I support iCaucus’ right to act in just about any way it wants.  But capitalism is a two-way street, and if iCaucus pulls their endorsement of Lightner, because of mere allegations by people who are all too likely to be “bad sports,” I consider it quite unlikely that major candidates in future years will take iCaucus seriously enough to respond to questionnaires or to take part in the endorsement process.

In the future, the message to candidates will be two-fold:
1.  If you are considered to be “too much a part of the establishment,” than you’re unwanted.
2.  Even if you are endorsed, but if, after the fact, a few influential iCaucus members don’t like you, then iCaucus leaders may end up damaging your campaign by releasing an embarrassing “we withdraw this endorsement” press release.

Generally, before sending a public Email such as this one, I would prefer to contact Mr. Halloran in a private manner.  Given that I do not know his phone number, and given the urgent nature of this topic, I have decided to send this Email in a public manner.  For what it’s worth, I did just send him a “Facebook friend request;” upon his acceptance, perhaps I will learn his phone number.

I’m copying this Email to the Kansas-wide iCaucus group with 292 members, the Kansas Third District group (138 members), and to the national iCaucus group (at the Email address memberservices@icaucus.org).  I’ll enclose my contact information below.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Hodge

Kansas Representative, 2006-’08
Trustee, Johnson County Community College, 2005-’09
(913) 259-4236
contact@benjaminhodge.com
www.benjaminhodge.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/hodgekansas
Twitter: http://twitter.com/benjaminhodge

______________________

Connect with Benjamin Hodge at Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, The Kansas Progress, and LibertyLinked. Hodge is President of the State and Local Reform Group of Kansas.  He served as one of seven at-large trustees at Johnson County Community College from 2005-’09, a member of the Kansas House from 2007-’08, a delegate to the Kansas Republican Party from 2009-’10, and was founder of the Overland Park Republican Party in 2011.  His public policy record is recognized by Americans for Prosperity, the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, the Kansas Press Association, the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government, the NRA, Kansans for Life, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).