July 20, 2009Dear Fellow CCRP Members,I seek your help. CCRP leadership has egregiously violated multiple sections of theCalifornia Election Code:

•

7354 – Failure to abide by prohibition against pre-primary support, oppositionor endorsement of any Republican candidate.

•

7443 - Failure of o

cers to perform duties of the Committee for the beneﬁt of the entire Party as required.

•

7410 – Failure to ﬁll Committee vacancies in a lawful manner.

•

7411, 354 - Failure to fulﬁll mandatory removal of lapsed and ineligibleMember, Tom Del Beccaro.I ask for your careful consideration of these matters and request formal response fromour leadership.

PROHIBITION AGAINST PRE-PRIMARY SUPPORT, OPPOSITION, ORENDORSEMENT

I agree that the belated forum is only a CYA move by CCRP leadership to put on atoken show to pretend it has not in fact thrown its support, party resources and paidsta



exclusively behind David Harmer and obstructed the other candidates.

The truthwill emerge about the CCRP dial for dollars operation in which volunteers wereinstructed to read a script stating we have 'one candidate' naming David Harmer andwith no mention of the other Republicans running.

This isn't conjecture.

Answeringmachine recordings, credit card transactions, etc. will back the word of volunteers whomade the calls and folks who received them.It gets worse.

When one of our unacknowledged candidates, David Peterson,requested inclusion of his candidacy in the phone operation, access to the call list andreferral to CCRP donors, he was sti



-armed (refused) by Chairman Greg Poulos.

Mysteriously, the phone operation is now shut down, the volunteers sent home and thephone lists rolled up and put away.

Is this because su

cient funds and awarenesswere achieved for the favorite candidate?

Chris Bunch in his remarks to Contra CostaTimes reporter Josh Richman, described other obstruction to his candidacy by Exec.Director/Harmer Campaign Manager, Michael Caporusso and Poulos.

(Bunch'sremarks here.

See UPDATE @ 9:50 A.M. TUESDAY:

http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2009/07/13/cd10-vets-for-woods-gop-inﬁghting/ )To clarify, it was KSFO host Brian Sussman who introduced Tom Del Beccaro (CCRP'sPublic Relations Chairman) on air as the Vice Chairman of the California RepublicanParty.

But Del Beccaro did not deny or object to that title of introduction.

Nor did DelBeccaro make disclaimer that he was addressing the KSFO listenership as a privateindividual.

Therefore, we know Del Beccaro spoke in an o

cial capacity when he madehis statements of enthusiastic and unreserved support

exclusively for David Harmeron air July 10.

Del Beccaro completely omitted any mention of the others, creating thefalse impression there are no other Republicans for the voters to consider.

The "I was speaking as a private individual" excuse (that CCRP Legal Counsel SteveSonaty claimed after the fact of his own instructions to the membership to exclusivelysupport Harmer and that we not conduct an open candidate forum) also will not ﬂy inDel Beccaro's case.

Now that wrongdoing has been pointed out, the excuses or self-justiﬁcations put upby CCRP o

cials fall within the following varieties:1)Sleight of hand, diversionary tactics to focus on endorsement and pretend thatsupport and opposition are not part of the CEC 7354 statute or CRP bylaws, ergothe other CCRP actions are not of consequence.2)Claim that no o

cial endorsement was made, again pretending as if Del Beccaro’spublic statements as CRP Vice Chair don’t matter.3)Unable to evade their own words, CCRP o

cers without contrition falsely proclaimthey spoke as ‘private individuals’ merely exercising their First Amendment rightor worse yet, whine and cry that the wee CCRP regular members who had the nerveto point out the above aren’t according proper ‘respect.’The fallacy of either #1 and #2 as a ‘defense’ is self-evident from the aforementionedfacts.

That Poulos, Del Beccaro, Caporusso and Sonaty (who all swore oaths, multipletimes, in some cases, in the assumption of their o

ces) attempt to stand on #3illustrates either a failure to understand, appreciate, abide by and uphold the law; or anarrogant belief that they are above it.Consider further, that that there is no mutual exclusivity between the reasons whyPoulos, Del Beccaro, Caporusso and Sonaty have elected excuse #3.

They can be bothignorant

and

arrogant of the law.

They are certainly guilty of at least one, if not both.

By this, I stipulate that the actions of said CCRP and CRP o

cials are in fact, at leastnegligent, and almost certainly reckless. The degree of willfulness and intention maynot be 100% irrefutable at this point but the picture isn’t pretty for the integrity of theRepublican Party.

We are supposed to be the party of higher standards.California has a long tradition against pre-primary selection/endorsement/support/opposition of candidates by a party apparatus dating back to the 19

century.

Thepurpose of a primary election is that the People (or those with party a

liation/preference) choose the candidate, and not a cloistered elite.

This practice wasreinforced by an o

cial opinion issued by Edmund G. Brown (Sr.) when he served asAttorney General.

This prohibition was again formalized to apply to all politicalparties in California by statute in 1963.

The courts---including the CaliforniaSupreme Court in Unger v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco &Republican Party of California and the United States Supreme Court in Eu v. SanFrancisco Democratic Party---have reviewed and commented on the matter. In thelatter case, the USSC e



ectively reviewed the entire body of the California ElectionCode.

Portions of the CEC were vacated as unconstitutional by the USSC in 1989 butnot the speciﬁc restrictions against pre-primary support, opposition, or endorsementof Republican candidates by the county and state central committees per CEC 7354.The key point that must be understood regarding the USSC’s Eu decision and CEC7354 is that the statute’s restrictions imposed upon the county and state committees

originate from the Party, and not the State (i.e., the Government). Because the natureof these restrictions is between private parties per their private Bylaws, and notimposed by the State upon private parties, CEC 7354 is constitutional and therefore letto stand by the USSC.

This is a shining example of how, once upon a time and unlikethe current insolvency, California was to be a leading example for the rest of the nationfor better participation, level access for all-comers, open & fostered debate, and self-reﬂective governance.

FAILURE TO PERFORM DUTIES FOR BENEFIT OF ENTIRE PARTY

Messrs. Poulos, Del Beccaro, Caporusso and Sonaty also have been acting contra thefollowing CEC section:

7443. The committees shall perform any other duties and servicesfor this political party as seem to be

for the benefit of the party.

Members of a county central committee may serve after the expirationdate of their terms until the election and qualification of the newmembers replacing them on the county central committees.

Not for the beneﬁt of certain individuals, nor for the beneﬁt of subgroups within theparty, but for The Party itself.

Meaning the WholeParty.

All of itsMembers.

All of itsCandidates.

Not just for the beneﬁt of David Harmer, or in the beneﬁt for whomevermay happen to be funding CCRP the most at a given time.

Other quid pro quoarrangements---such as Yvette Abreu’s resignation immediately after swearing in, DelBeccaro’s subsequently illegally ﬁlling Abreu’s vacancy with Poulos, and Abreu’s laterreward (as a non-member) of appointments to three choice standingsubcommittees---show that individual interests are placed above the Party’s. TheCourts have also examined, upheld and praised the notions of section 7443 as well.

CCRP and CRP leadership are invited to reacquaint themselves with these principlesand renderings.Before concluding, I must speciﬁcally address the corollary of Excuse #3 that CCRPLegal Counsel Steve Sonaty raised counter to my immediate objection to his commandthat I must fall in and, contrary to my own judgement, ‘get behind’ David Harmer’scandidacy.

Mr. Sonaty, without evidence or logical argument, claimed that I wassomehow abridging his rights by standing up for myself.

The previous exposition hasshown that the restriction on support, opposition or endorsement of candidates in thepre-primary stage comes not from me, any other individual, or the government butfrom the private organization, California Republican Party.

The California statute (CEC7354) simply upholds the right of the CRP to impose such Bylaws.

The CRPmembership is comprised from the respective county Republican central committees,who in turn created and approved the CRP bylaws to which the statute refers and bywhich the county central committees have agreed to abide.

The CCRP Bylawsacknowledge that our Hierarchy of Authorities places California Election Code ﬁrst andabove our own Bylaws.

Messrs. Poulos and Del Beccaro were among CCRP’s mostrecent (contested) delegation to the CRP state convention, so they should be well-acquainted with these facts.