“I’ve run my mentoring program, Rupert’s Kids, for many years and understand how difficult fundraising can be,” says Boneham. “This bill’s amendment appears to wipe out the ability of the groups approved for plates in 2011.”
Groups, such as the Tony Stewart Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Indiana Youth Group, and the Patriot Guard, among others, who received approval for their specialty license plates in 2011 will lose their specialty plates, and have to re-apply.
“This is an issue where politics doesn’t need to meddle. The state already has a process in place for non-profit groups to apply for the ability to raise funds through sales of these specialty plates,” adds Boneham. “We don’t need to have the politicians in the legislature deciding which non-profit organizations are worthy of this consideration. We need to keep politics out of cases like these, and let the organizations who meet the criteria have the access.
In addition to retroactively eliminating plates for groups who were approved in 2011, and forcing them to re-apply, the bill as amended would place in jeopardy the status of plates for groups such at the NRA, Special Olympics, the Indiana Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and the American Diabetes Association. These groups and others like them, have surpassed the 500 plate benchmark currently in place, but may be in jeopardy if the bill goes through as amended and raises the benchmark to 1000 plates.
“These groups have put in many hours proving their eligibility for these specialty plates. We don’t need the legislature to retroactively change the five year contracts these groups have agreed to with the state,” Boneham adds.
Of concern to Boneham is the idea that this amendment is targeted at one specific group – The Indiana Youth Group (IYG). “Their organization does excellent work in advocating throughout the state for safe and secure learning environments for self-identified LGBTQ youth,” says Boneham.
There have been multiple failed attempts in the Indiana Legislature to attach amendments to bills aimed at taking away the specialty plate issued for the Indiana Youth Group.
Boneham adds, “It’s sad, that these groups, and the communities they serve are caught up in what appears to be an attack based on fear and hate. This is a good example of why the process for awarding these plates was placed in the hands of the BMV, and not given to the whims of politicians.”
Updated: March 1, 2012
Boneham’s campaign was pleased to hear that Rep. Ed Soliday, R- Valparaiso, had pulled SB 327, but remained cautious of the bill’s intent.
Evan McMahon, Boneham’s campaign manager, said, “The entire process reeked of partisan politics and ‘moral’ superiority.” Referring to the multiple failed amendments targeting the recently approved specialty plates for Indiana Youth Group (IYG).
McMahon continued, “Had there been a real desire to reign in all the current specialty plates and limit future ones… there would have been a larger hearing, a study session or at least a public discussion with the BMV and currently approved non-profits groups.”
Boneham noted that he was encouraged to see the public response to the bill, “I am proud to see Hoosiers standing up and taking an active role in support of all 22 of these outstanding organizations.”
Rupert For Governor
129 E. Market St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Evan McMahon, Campaign Manager
317-643-4090 ext 1 (office)
“It's Our Time!” - RupertForGovernor.com
317-643-4090 ext 1 (office)
“It's Our Time!” - RupertForGovernor.com
As if there is anything "libertarian" about defending government-issued license plates. LP candidates are invariably pathetic, but this is absurd beyond belief. It is not the proper role of limited government to serve as a collection and dispersion agent for corporations, even if they are so-called non-profits.
I see that Boneham also opposes Right To Work on the idiotic pretext of it interfering with the right to contract. The Right to Be Intimidated is more like it.
I understand the libertarian viewpoint, but Boneham is not your normal libertarian candidate. It remains to be seen whether the LP convention will coronate him (excuse me, elect him) this spring, or endorse another.
Boneham is a "normal" Libertarian Party candidate: he is not a libertarian. It is doubtful that he has read one book by one principled libertarian.
His foolishness is not very different than that of the LP's candidate for Secretary of State a few years back, Mike Kole, who rocked the state by advocating: 1) no gerrymandering, 2) trustworthy voting machines, and 3) putting the BMV under the control of the Secretary of State.
This is the way LP candidates present themselves around the country because they are not libertarians. Like Republicans they spice their personal ambitions with a bit of phony free market rhetoric, but nothing that will make the natives restless.
I was able to make it through the excruciatingly dull first 10 minutes of the video of a recent talk Boneham gave to the Young Americans for Liberty convention, and he was not able to articulate any libertarian viewpoint. He was, however, quite happy to drone on about himself. I continue to point my poison pen at the LP because it works to convince the naive that it speaks for libertarianism. It most emphatically does not.
Rupert Boneham Speaks at the YAL Indiana Convention
Mr. Martin, I agree with you 100%, though you might be a little harsh on Mike Kole, as I tend to appreciate some (not all) of his views.
The LP is mainly concerned with having a warm body to fill a vacancy; not that they expect to win, but to offer a message to opposing parties to pressure them toward their LP positions, as evidenced by some of the candidates own statements. I can supply them if you need.
Oh, Nicholas Martin, my personal stalker. Good to see you advancing my PR per usual.
A phony libertarian weighed in on these license plates recently: http://kolehardfacts.blogspot.com/2012/02/oh-now-theres-problem-with-license.html
Patriot Paul, I accurately characterize Kole's candidacy, not exaggerating one bit. His campaign positions are still on display:
Detect anything libertarian about those positions? He actually proposed enlarging the power of the office he sought.
The LP doesn't pressure the other parties toward any position because it offers no distinct alternative to Republican rhetoric. That is, it doesn't behave like Ron Paul. I think the LP candidates accurately reflect the position of the party, which is a sort of tolerant Republicanism. It assiduously avoids taking positions on hard issues.
When I challenged the LP's bona fides in 2004, Kole responded, "I am not interested in the question of who is or isn't a phony libertarian." No wonder. He wrote to me that the LP's "current operational motto is this: 'you owe it to your philosophy to study how to win'." I've no idea what philosophy he could have meant since neither he nor any other member of the state LP, aside from the egomaniacal solipsist Andy Hornung. show any familiarity or interest in libertarian philosophy. They are merely bugs to media lights. They are the phony face of libertarianism inoffensive to the non-libertarian media.
In a patently non-libertarian response to my criticism of the LP, Kole responded, "Your attempt to cause dissention within our ranks is not appreciated." What sort of libertarian doesn't appreciation dissent? The Mike Kole sort whose job was permit inspector for the Hamilton County Surveyor's office. It is hard to imagine a less libertarian job short, possibly, of vice squad officer.
Kole, you are no less a public figure, having run for political office and being a current LP country chairman than is any Republican or Democrat.
It is pathetic that you try to deflect criticism by invoking the word "stalker," like some middle school girl on her Facebook page. Man up.
I use you not because I care one whit about you personally, having never met you, but because you are a good sample of the non-libertarian LP candidate.
Nicholas, you man up. Run for office. Show us how a 'real libertarian' gets it done.
You have endless criticism, but no action. Typical. But I love your criticism. It goes, "You ran on issues germaine to the office you sought, goddamn you!" Not sorry if I didn't toss you the irrelevant red meat you craved.
The damnedest thing is, we probably agree on policy 98.5% of the time. Meet me some time and we can discuss, and you can suss that out on me.
Mr. Kole, if a political office offered no opportunity for libertarian principle to be advanced, either in campaign or victory, then no libertarian should seek it since all it would offer is power that a libertarian would eschew.
In fact a campaign for secretary of state offers a platform for advocating a reduction of government -- no law prevents such an effort. It could be used to oppose the drug war, for instance, or the abolition of IP laws. Instead, you advocated enlarging the authority of the secretary of state!
The notion that office-seeking is a measure of social utility is amusing, ridiculous, and false. It it were we could rule out Aristotle, Gandhi, M. L. King, Mencken, Orwell, and Ludwig von Mises, among a multitude. They were cowards, they were critics, they weren't the ambitious Mike Kole or Rupert Boneham.
You are an active member of the LP. Do you have any public criticism of Boneham's demand that the state stay in the job of supplying specialty license plates and distributing the loot they bring in? Surely not since, in your phrase, that would constitute an "attempt to cause dissention" (sic) Party yes; principle, no.
We are nothing alike. I embrace dissent, even among those with whom I basically agree.
Post a Comment