Contra Costa Republican Chairman Matt Shupe and I have introduced a bylaw amendment to close an insane loophole in the California Republican Party bylaws.  Giving the CRP endorsement to a candidate who has never before been elected as a Republican should require a vote of the party -- and not be given on auto-pilot.

Here is the text of our amendment to be considered at this weekend's CRP convention:

PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONCERNING “DEEMED ENDORSED" CANDIDATES

Submitted by former CRP Chairman Ron Nehring and Contra Costa Republican Chairman Matt Shupe

Section 3.02.02 Deemed Endorsements for Partisan Elective Office in a Top Two, Special, or Recall Election

​CURRENT LANGUAGE

After the Secretary of State’s certification of the primary election results, all Republican Nominees as defined in Section 1.04 (B) shall be deemed to be endorsed by the Committee, absent a Committee decision not to endorse in accordance with Section 3.02.03(A)(3)-(5), and any endorsement for any other candidate for the same office shall be void.

PROPOSED LANGUAGE

Strike existing 3.02.02 and replace with:

A. All Republican Nominees as defined in Section 1.04 (B) who are currently incumbents seeking re-election to the same office shall be deemed to be endorsed by the Committee, absent a Committee decision to unendorse in accordance with Section 3.02(C), and any endorsement for any other candidate for the same office shall be void. In the event of two incumbents seeking re-election to the same office in the same district as a result of redistricting, this subsection shall not apply, and no endorsement shall be granted unless as prescribed in Section 3.02(B).

B. Nominees as defined in section 1.04(B) not currently holding the office sought may be endorsed by the committee upon a majority vote of the board of directors, the executive committee, or the committee.

C. The board of directors, executive committee, or full committee may by 2/3rds vote of those present and voting following a hearing revoke the nominee status of any candidate who brings discredit to the Republican Party.

SUMMARY

The California Republican Party bylaws currently confer the committee’s endorsement automatically any time only one Republican candidate for state office, U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate moves on to the second round from the top-two primary. This “deemed endorsed” rule is flawed in that it allows any individual, no matter their views or how they reflect on the Republican Party, to claim to have the endorsement of the California Republican Party.

The rule currently constructed has resulted in significant reputational damage to the California Republican Party multiple times.

In 2018, a three-time Democratic candidate, Holocaust denier and blatant anti-Semite running in a heavily Democratic Congressional district, switched to the Republican Party, was the only “Republican” filing for the office, moved on to the second round, and thus earned the party’s “automatic” endorsement. In effect, by virtue of being the only “Republican” candidate to file in a lopsided Democratic district, this three-time Democrat, anti-Semitic fringe candidate had been endorsed by the California Republican Party. See Holocaust Denier in California Congressional Race Leaves State G.O.P. Scrambling - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

To prevent a repeat of this and similar damaging incidents, the proposed change would limit “deemed endorsements” to incumbents seeking re-election to the same office. Presumably Republican incumbents who have previously been elected to state or federal office will have met a higher standard of scrutiny and conduct, and can still have the endorsement revoked per the current language.

Candidates seeking open seats, or challengers, would be deemed endorsed only following an affirmative vote by either the Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, or the full committee. This requirement of a vote to receive the party’s official endorsement is critically needed to protect the future reputation of the California Republican Party, and to protect Republican candidates from being unwittingly affiliated with endorsed candidates who do not reflect the values and ethics of the Republican Party.

The proposed language also empowers the full Committee, the Board of Directors, or the Executive Committee to revoke a candidate’s nominee status if they bring discredit to the Republican Party. Rather than defining strictly the term “discredit,” the proposed language requires a hearing and has a high threshold (2/3rds vote) to take effect.
Respectfully submitted by former CRP Chairman Ron Nehring and Contra Costa County Republican Chairman Matt Shupe.

I recently had the opportunity to be the featured guest on an episode of Name Drop San Diego, a podcast of the San Diego Union-Tribune, my adopted home town newspaper.

Here's what interviewers Abby Hamblin and Kristy Totten had to say:
Californian Ron Nehring has a uniquely comprehensive view of the Republican Party over the last 20 years.

He’s worked in the GOP at every level, chairing the San Diego County Republican Party from 2001 to 2007, chairing the California Republican Party and serving on the Republican National Committee from 2007 to 2011, running for lieutenant governor of California against Gavin Newsom in 2014 and being the national 2016 presidential campaign spokesman for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Currently, his focus and interest is both global and local. He champions the party on a global level, directing international programs for The Leadership Institute, which teaches conservatives how to succeed in politics, government and media. And last year, the Crest resident was also elected to the Crest, Dehesa, Harbison Canyon and Granite Hills planning group.
​
You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting on yet another avoidable California wildfire tragedy.

While politicians in Sacramento are quick to invoke "climate change" as the sole cause of the state's wildfires, the reality is wildfires can be more directly traced to failed state policies in the areas of forest management and defensible space.

Case in point: the town of Berry Creek sought permission to thin surrounding forests to stem the risk of wildfire.  The state bureaucracy sat on the request for two years.  Just as one of the contracts to thin the forest was finally about to go out for bid, the town was burned to the ground.

For those of us living in fire prone areas, bureaucracy and inter-governmental infighting can be as threatening as wildfire itself.  For the bureaucracy, wildfire has become institutionalized -- it's about permits and paperwork.  For some of the politicians, it has become about adherence to an ideology that does not permit sound forest management.

Read about what happened to Berry Creek here:
WSJ: A California Town's Fire-Protection Plans Hit Red Tape, Then the Flames Came

If you want to move the mouse, move the cheese.

The crowded Democratic field combined with offers from news networks to host early presidential debates has created an incentive structure that rewards candidates taking early shots at each other while taking increasingly problematic positions on hot button issues that will pose challenges in a general election campaign.

That's the thrust of my story in The Hill this week.  To understand why Democratic candidates are taking positions so at odd with voters -- like abolishing private health insurance and having taxpayers foot the bill for every person's healthcare in the United States whether they are here legally or not -- we need to understand the incentives pulling them there.

Even worse, the drive to maximize national poll numbers creates another conflict.  To win back the White House, Democrats must take back midwestern states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Missouri.  Yet, with their national membership weighted heavily toward coastal urban centers, Democratic candidates are incentivized to cozy up to those Democrats, who are on a different page than Midwestern general election voters.

To explore this further, take a look at my piece in The Hill.

At the invitation of the Liberal Party of Western Australia I had the opportunity to discuss the issues surrounding information warfare with Australian leaders and activists.  The Liberal Party is the country's governing-center right party.

I sat down with journalist Nathan Hondros to discuss a bit of what we saw in the U.S. presidential election in 2016, and the possibility of hostile foreign powers using similar techniques to impact Australia's upcoming federal election.  While I have not seen direct evidence of such interference in Australia, we need to be aware of information warfare as a tool available to governments to sway public opinion in target countries.

Click on the link below to read the full story in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The ongoing efforts of the Russian government to undermine America's democracy and society are complex and at times controversial.  The stakes are high -- a foreign government and its proxies are investing substantial resources to undermine both our system of government, and the fabric of our society.  While the net impact of these efforts on election outcomes is subject to debate, many facts are well established and beyond reasonable questioning.

In my latest piece for Medium, I provide a quick read on the fundamental objectives and methods to Russian information warfare.  (I never use the common term "meddling" to describe the Russian actions -- meddling is when I wander into the kitchen and start messing around with what's on the stove.  This is far more serious). 

The actions of Russia's intelligence services and troll farms aligned with Russian government objectives did not stop on Election Day 2016 in America -- they are ongoing, both in the United States and also against targets in Europe and elsewhere.  For this reason, it is important for every American to have an understanding of what is going on.

I hope you enjoy the piece.

Hack.  Leak.  Amplify -- A fast primer on Russia's information warfare campaign in the United States (Medium)

I'm across the Atlantic several times a year, so I decided to help fellow business travelers by sharing my technique for beating jetlag even while traveling in economy.  It's the topic for my first contribution on Medium.  Take a look:

How I defeat jetlag on transatlantic trips -- in economy.  Ron Nehring on Medium

This article first appeared on the Flashreport on June 23, 2017.

Republicans in Congress are moving forward to fulfilling the promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare.  The work performed by Senate Republicans revealed this week represents another step in the right direction.

Repeal and replacement of Obamacare cannot come too soon.  Millions of Americans have had their health insurance policies cancelled, choices reduced, and taxes raised by the law.

In campaigning for its passage, President Barack Obama promised Americans that if they like their plan, or their doctor, they can keep both.  This was flatly untrue.  I know, because I’m one of the more than 1 million Californians whose health insurance was made illegal under the law.  Also like many Californians, the options I had for a new plan were all dramatically more expensive than my old plan.

This is not what we were promised.

Obamacare was supposed to provide more options for people to buy insurance, but for millions of Americans the opposite has proven true.  In Arizona, for example, state residents are down to just one choice on the Obamacare exchange.

One choice is no choice.

Legislating has been likened to sausage making for a good reason – it’s not a pretty process, and it’s easy to lose focus.  Republicans can and must concentrate not just on repealing Obamacare, but replacing it with a law that works better.

The Senate Republican discussion draft represents tremendous progress.  Collapsing insurance markets would receive a boost with a $15 billion short term stabilization fund.  Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates would go, along with the law’s taxes.  In fact, repealing Obamacare is a giant tax cut for the American people, doing away with all kinds of taxes that drive up the cost of everything from medical devices to prescription drugs.

The proposal would replace Obamacare’s subsidies with more market oriented tax credits benefitting people whose income falls between the federal poverty level and 350% of that rate.  The tax credits are advanceable and refundable.  That is, people who currently pay zero federal income taxes would receive the full amount of the credit in the form of a payment that can be used to help pay for health insurance.

Several important aspects of the current law are preserved, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, and allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance plan to age 26.

Several  Republican Senators, including Ted Cruz of Texas, stopped short of endorsing the Senate discussion draft, looking to ensure that premiums under the new law come down.  This is wise – Republicans will be held fully accountable for how health insurance markets work after Obamacare is relegated to the ash heap of history, so the insistence that rates must come down because of a better performing insurance markets is both smart policy and smart politics.

Specifically, among other reforms Cruz wants Health Savings Accounts expanded so Americans can pay for insurance premiums with pre-tax income.  This is an important reform that would correct a 70-year-old quirk in the tax code that makes health insurance premiums tax deductible when employers pay for it, but not when purchased by an individual.  This fix would provide a big cost savings for many families while leveling the tax treatment of employer and individually purchased insurance plans.

Tacking the lawsuits that needlessly drive up health insurance costs, Cruz wants to see incentives for states to adopt laws like California’s that cap punitive damages in malpractice cases.  California’s MICRA law limits non-economic damages in malpractice cases to $250,000.  Other states have no such cap – a big bonus for trial lawyers.

With the GOP in charge at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, Republicans must fulfill the promises of repealing Obamacare, fundamentally reforming and lowering federal taxes, and securing our southern border.  These big ticket legislative items will have a real positive impact on Americans’ quality of life while proving Republicans can serve as an effective governing party.

Great progress has been made, negotiations continue, and there is now great cause for optimism that Obamacare’s days are finally numbered.

WASHINGTON, DC -- Citing the importance of promoting democracy and sound governance in Latin America, Republican leaders from California and Ohio will join an international team in Honduras today to observe this weekend's primary elections in that country.

"Promoting democracy, individual liberty, free markets, trade and the rule of law in Latin America is in America's national interest.  This weekend's primary election in Honduras is an important event in the practice of internal party democracy and we're pleased to have the opportunity to observe, learn and report on events surrounding it," said former California Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring, who is leading the American team.  Nehring served as the national campaign spokesman in the Presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz in 2016.

From California, former Contra Costa County Republican Chair Nyna Armstrong and former Inyo County Republican Chairman Thaddeus Taylor will join former Ohio Republican Chairman Mike DeWine to round out the four person team.

"While governments in Cuba and Venezuela continue to suppress economic and political freedoms, elections in Honduras provide its people with the opportunity to have their voices heard," added Nehring.

The four Americans will join 17 leaders from center-right parties of Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Colombia, Guatemala, and Argentina in the observation mission, which is organized by the German Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (Foundation) and the Partido Nacional de Honduras.

"This mission also provides us with a great opportunity to build and strengthen relationships with leaders of other center-right parties from throughout Latin America.  We share a common commitment to democracy, individual liberty and economic freedoms," said Nehring.

The election observation team will receive briefings on political developments throughout Latin America, meet with government officials and candidates, observe the casting of ballots and vote tallying in the capital city of Tegucigalpa, and report on their observations during the mission, which runs from Friday, March 10 through Monday March 13.  Primary election day is Sunday, March 12.

Follow the election observation mission on Twitter at @RonNehring.

Internal elections offer the members and leaders of political parties to refresh and refine their leadership at the onset of a new election cycle.  There is a reason the California Republican Party holds its convention in the first quarter following a general election – leaders are put in place to move the party forward in a new cycle.

As the performance of party leadership is reviewed, some commentators and self-styled analysts get it wrong -- mixing up what party leaders can control and influence with what they can’t.  The result can be incorrect analysis and bad recommendations.

Having served as a party chairman for more than a decade – six years as leader of the Republican Party in San Diego and four as Chairman of the state GOP – I’m acutely aware of what a chairman controls, versus the external factors beyond his control.  Measuring a chairman’s success requires a careful examination of the areas a chairman controls, and comparing the party’s performance in those areas against the limits of what was otherwise possible.

First let’s review what a chairman doesn’t control.  He does not pick the candidates – those are chosen by voters, and thanks to California’s misguided “jungle primary” system, the Republican nominees are not even chosen by the party’s own members, but rather by the electorate at large.  

America’s political system is candidate-centric, not party centric.  Commentators and journalists consistently gloss over the reality that the real decision-making power in any campaign lies with the candidates, who choose their own messages, staff, strategy, tactics and approaches to fundraising.  If a candidate alienates key constituencies, fails to raise money effectively, chooses the wrong messages, or their mail lands after the polls close are all decisions made by candidates and campaigns, and it is they who need to be accountable.  

And they are – when they lose, they’re out.

Chairmen also do not control the party’s brand, which is primarily driven by national media coverage of Republicans in Washington and on the national stage.  Doubt this?  Check how many minutes of coverage per day the typical Californian receives from the 916 area code versus 202.  Party brands are defined nationally, and the Republican Party brand does pretty well -- nationally.  A Republican President-elect, House and Senate demonstrate that.  

The California electorate, however, is very different than the national electorate, with much higher Latino and Asian populations that are far less receptive to national Republican messages than whites.  The state also has a much larger immigrant population which is sensitive to different issues than those whose parents were born here.

So just what does a party chairman control?  Three things – personnel, finances, and programs.  That’s not a big list, but it’s longer than it was between 2001 and 2009 when Republican state party chairmen in California were hamstrung by misguided rules that seriously complicated a chairman’s ability to lead the party. Since 2009, party chairmen in California can and should be held accountable for their personnel, the state of party finances, and the political programs the party implements.

In the areas he controls, California Republican Party Chairman Jim Brulte has performed exceptionally well.

The California Republican Party staff is professional and efficient.  Staff level relations with candidate campaigns have functioned well, phone calls are returned, and the staff is consistently focused on implementing the directives coming from the Chairman and Board of Directors.  

State party finances are a critically important metric for me.  When I became state party chairman in 2007 the CRP was in a $4.7 MILLION sinkhole.  I left the chairmanship in 2011 with well over $400,000 in cash on hand, no debt, no bills and a low burn rate.

When Chairman Brulte was elected, the CRP was back in debt again to the tune of over $1 million.  Yet, he quickly brought the state party back into the black and has kept it there.

This is no small accomplishment.  Just like in government, all the pressure on the party coming from Sacramento can be summed up in two words: SPEND.  MORE.  Desperate candidates push  the party to spend money it doesn’t have to help their campaigns, and consultants don’t earn commissions on money left in the bank.  Brulte demonstrates the strength to say yes when he can, and say no when he must.

Finally, programs.  California’s convoluted maze of campaign finance laws places a premium on raising money into the state party and then working with campaigns to the maximum legal extent to get resources where they need to be. Sometimes this involves spending the money directly on voter registration and turnout activities, while at other teams it requires making contributions to campaigns directly.

The results speak for themselves.  Despite a national ticket that did not perform well in California, Republicans held a majority of the state legislative seats that were targeted by the Democrats, who spent roughly $1 million per district while every Republican member of the House of Representatives was elected to a new term.  Given the political dynamics in California in 2016, this was the absolute best Republicans could have achieved.  

Republicans have work to do in California, no doubt.  Candidates and campaign staffs must commit to learning the skills needed to boost campaign performance in urban and suburban areas, improve performance in early voting, and build relationships across diverse communities well before Election Day.

Nationally there is much work to do as well – the messages coming out of Washington DC overpower whatever Republicans are doing in Sacramento.  A goal of winning the popular vote, as well as the Electoral College vote, in 2020 should serve as a powerful incentive to strengthen the Republican brand among voters who are Republicans but don’t know it yet.

In the meantime, Chairman Jim Brulte deserves another term.