Archive | Mayor Gray RSS feed for this section

Mayoral Forum Wednesday excludes Libertarians

1 Oct

Apparently DC Votes opposes same day voter registration!

You may have seen this flyer for a mayoral forum tomorrow around town listing me as a participant. I am actually excluded from the forum.

Someone showed it to me Monday night — yesterday —  and I started searching my email for an invitation to a forum for Wednesday October 1 and couldn’t find one.

It turns out the invite was buried in an email with a candidate questionnaire.  I’ve been answering candidate questionnaires all month — from the League of Women Voters, from the DC Youth Alliance, etc. — and I’d glanced at this one and put it off because it was longer and more involved than the others.  The subject line of the September 12 email is “Strengthening Our Local Democracy Candidate Questionnaire” — no mention of an event.  You have to open the email and see the mention of an event in the prologue text, not in the attached questionnaire (which is what I immediately went to).

I sent DC Votes my answers on the morning of September 30th, along with a statement that I regretted the misunderstanding.  I pointed out to them that they were unique in combining a questionnaire and an event invitation in the same email — and not mentioning the event invite in the subject line. They maintain it would be “unfair” to allow anyone in who didn’t reply by September 26th.  After closely questioning a slightly evasive Kimberly Perry on the phone, who first insisted everyone else understood it was an event invitation (and that I was uniquely oblivious), it looks like Muriel Bowser may have replied and is at any rate skipping their event, and Green Party candidate Faith Crannich never replied, so she too may not have realized there was an event.

The two essential questions for this forum are:

1) Does DC Vote oppose same week voter registration?

2) Will the coffee be strong enough if only Schwartz and Catania are there, and don’t contrast their approaches to statehood but devolve into a personal squabble?

I am not sure I am going to find out.  I suppose they won’t actually have tons of security, as American University does, to keep out the uninvited candidates.  But I don’t know if it is worth it to go sit in a room with the same two dozen activists/local political junkies, who show up at every event.

Below are my answers.  Ms. Perry opined that it would be unfair to provide my answers to the public since I would have had a chance to read Schwartz’s or Catania’s answers posted sometime this week on the DC Vote website (I actually went on their website last night to find out about the date and time of the mystery event my supporters were telling me about, and didn’t see any such answers from other candidates.  It’s amusing that she thinks a Libertarian answer would resemble theirs.) She thinks it is more democratic to exclude a candidate and their answers to her questions from her website and her forum because she didn’t get them 5 days ahead of her event than it is to include a candidate when she gets the answers a day ahead of time.

If you are donating to this group perhaps you should find an alternative.  This approach may be why we don’t have Statehood.  Maybe Congress people aren’t opening their emails because they don’t mention the real subject in the subject line.

If only I had corporate PAC money so I could have staff to schedule events and read my sea of email, including those with uninformative subject lines.  My apologies if you attend the event expecting to see me.

Hey Muriel — wanna have coffee tomorrow morning at Corner Bakery?  My treat!  I guess we will be forgoing the 30 DC activists who go to almost every campaign event.


  1. How might you coordinate with DC’s Delegate to Congress and together maximize the city’s productive relationships with the Washington regional congressional delegation to advance the agenda for greater autonomy and representation?

I think in general you need to bypass politicians and appeal directly to their voters and their interests.  In the case of Washington area representatives we would need to present a case that greater DC autonomy would allow DC to be a greater contributor of economic growth for the entire region, making the pie grow as opposed to competing for a slice of a pie not growing.  Somewhere in that project I’d like to commission a study of how allowing DC to get rid of the height limit on buildings would bring more jobs to the area, by allowing more units, both residential and commercial, to be built in the District.

  1. What strategies would you employ to stop riders from being placed on DC appropriation bills?

I think riders are placed on all bills in Congress so it is a much more general problem.  If DC had Senators and Representatives its political class would simply be participating in riders, earmarks etc. that affect it and other states.  Until DC is a state it has little power.  There are strategies it does not seem to have used much, including boycotting purchases from Congressional Districts whose representatives have attached such riders or in other ways been inimical to DC.

  1. If elected mayor and invited to the White House, what would be the top three issues you would raise? Related to this, what plans do you have to reach out to the White House after taking office?

This would depend in part on who is in the White House.  The three issues I would focus on with all federal officials are: (1) how DC needs Statehood, and before that more autonomy, to deal with its own criminal justice issues, so that it could wind down the war on drugs, something I think most DC residents favor; (2) allowing DC residents in federal prisons to be relocated to prisons closer to DC so that their family members could visit them, including potentially having a federal prison in DC; and (3) allowing DC more control of its own economic life, with an end to the height limit, and the transfer of unused federal property to the private economy.

  1. How might you amend DC’s Home Rule charter, within the legal guidelines outlined by Congress, to gain any greater autonomy for our local government?

In general I favor weening DC from the federal payment and instead allowing it to borrow money as freely as any other state.  DC has an influx of highly paid residents who ultimately derive their incomes from federal government employment and related activities like lobbying.  It can instead tax them if it needs money, and they can vote out DC politicians if they think the taxes and spending are unwise.

  1. What types of executive actions could the DC government take to assert greater autonomy without changing the law or asking for approval from Congress?  

DC’s political class is not highly regarded by DC residents and even less so by residents of neighboring states and other states whose Congressional representatives vote about DC matters. Rather than have our political class perpetually bleat about Statehood, which may be widely viewed as a self-interested cause, where they would like new monies and powers in their new roles as Governors or Senators of a new state, I favor a perpetual referendum (or initiative) in every election where the actual opinion of DC voters is measured about whether they would like Statehood, the status quo, or some other arrangement (including exemption from federal taxation as in Puerto Rico).

  1. While organizations like ours are fostering local, national and international partnerships all the time to advance democracy, from your perspective, who are our most strategic allies in the fight for autonomy and representation that we haven’t reached out to yet?

I think rather than doing the same things over and over one should identify new and maverick political factions and find a way of engaging them on the issues.  For example, Senators Rand Paul and Cory Booker have started cooperating on interesting criminal justice reforms (that would incidentally be great for District residents impacted by the criminal justice system).  We should formulate agendas they could be enticed to support.
  1. What specific things would residents of DC see coming out of your mayor’s office that would make it clear that advancing democracy for DC is a high priority?

First do no harm.  The DC government seems to have happily overturned term limits initiatives passed by the voters, and kept campaign finance reform initiatives with thousands of signatures off the ballot, in year past.  This makes it look like Statehood would not be about democracy for DC voters, but making a state for the DC political class where “home rule” would not be greater autonomy, but the political class ruling your home.

  1. The District government ended up divided over the local Budget Autonomy Act. This law was unanimously supported by the council, signed by the Mayor and overwhelmingly approved by voters.  As Mayor, what would you do to make sure DC presents a unified front on initiatives designed to give greater autonomy to the people of the District?

I don’t know that DC voters are or need to be unified on issues or that a mayor should spin to make it look like they are.  All states of course are heavily regulated by the federal government, which witholds federal funds unless they go along with federal policies.  DC simply has this worse than anyone else.

DC could forgoe the federal payment, since he who pays the piper calls the tune.  If that is not feasible DC could seek out state governments suing the federal government on a variety of issues to preserve state and local autonomy, and join them as a plaintiff; and then ask for cooperation on our autonomy in return.  Perhaps this could be part of the mission of the new Attorney General’s office.

  1. In 2001, Congress mandated through the Appropriations Act that the District establish two reserves that could be described as “rainy day” funds.  Although these reserves are funded with local dollars, Congress set very strict rules on when funds could be used and how they would have to be repaid.  What would you do, if anything, to seek greater or full local autonomy over these reserves?

In general I don’t think politicians can be trusted with money, and any such fund will be tapped to buy votes and reward donors.  I would suggest that we alter the city charter to take away control of such funds from Congress, by instead substituting that they can only be spent on projects identified by voters by initiative (and not including by the city council through referendums).

  1. Recently, a federal district judge from New York held that the city’s ban on the carrying of firearms outside the home is unconstitutional. How do you think the city should respond to this ruling?

I think the DC political class should resist its temptation to spend DC taxpayers money in court fighting to see how far they can go in minimizing the Bill of Rights.  Giving the DC political class “autonomy” from the Constitution and Bill of Rights does nothing for the autonomy of DC residents.  Every neighborhood list serve I read talks about intruders in yards, cars, back porches.  Some categories of crime, including rape, have risen in recent years, even if homicide rates have dropped.  Law abiding citizens should be allowed to have a gun at home in DC just as they are in many states.  Even the White House seems to be having a problem with intruders this year, and the police are not always there in time to prevent it.

  1. DC’s charter school board recently sued the city challenging the authority of the Council to alter the student funding formula established by Congress. What would you do as mayor to contest Congressional interference in matters like schools that that are clearly state and local functions?

I favor autonomy for DC residents, not the DC political class.  So I favor equal funding for charter schools,  In part this might allow enough charter schools to be started that the 22,000 students waiting for a space in one could enroll.  It would also save DC taxpayers money being wasted in court by the DC government defunding its unequal and discriminatory funding of students based on where they choose to learn.  Since cahrter schools and traditional public schools have different racial demographics — charter schools are more African American, with Ward 3 having no charter schools – this inequity has a racial inflection.

Congress and the federal Department of Education interfere in local schools in all states and I do in general oppose that.

Campaign Gatekeeping 101 in the DC mayoral race – Update

11 Sep
I did a little more investigation of the people behind one of the two larger debates I am being excluded from (I am invited to almost all of the smaller and medium sized ones).

Yesterday I had an odd exchange with one Debra Linick, the outgoing PR person for the debate sponsor, the Jewish Community Relations Council of the DC metro area.  Ms. Linick told me they only invited candidates who had raised at least 10% of the amount raised by the frontrunner, Muriel Bowser.  Boswer, like most Democrats in DC, has raised hundreds of thousands in corporate and union PAC donations.  (For example, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, who sits on Congressional Committees that sell and lease federally owned buildings and parcels in DC, routinely collects $400,000 every election cycle from real estate developers and building trades unions as well as government employee unions, even though she is often running unopposed.  No DC journalists ever investigate this, just as they never noticed any DC corruption until independent citizens like Tim Day brought it to light.)

The problem for Ms. Linick, who tells me she is going to “relook” her math, is that they are inviting (my friend) Carol Schwartz (an independent candidate who is a former Republican city council member).  Ms. Schwartz has raised around $70,000, around 3% of the $2.1 million Bowser has raised.  In looking into who Ms. Linick and various other people running the JCRC were yesterday. I see that she and I were both students at Georgetown University’s MBA program, overlapping, in the early 90s.  GU’s program is very light on math – and very heavy on ethics! – but even the students there know that $65,000 is not 10% of $2.1 million.  I will be curious to see if Ms. Linick is as good as her word, despite her computational deficiencies.

Then I began looking at the board of the JCRC.  Of the few I have looked at so far are seasoned citizens (see below) and often don’t seem to be still gainfully employed or to have much of an internet footprint.  They also seem to be fairly partisan, mainly Democrats (though one has some John Boehner connection).  They seem like a group that would be naturally inclined to protect the Democrat’s one party rule in DC, and certainly a group that would protect the two party monopoly.  (A Jewish libertarian friend, who alerted me to their forum in the first place, says that when he moved here he went to some of their events, and also came away with the impression that they were mainly Democratic party partisans, with few independents or others, and mainly older than people in similar organizations.)  It’s sad that there are virtually no independent organizations in DC (as well as none that represent tax payers, people victimized by the drug war, students unserved by DC’s failed schools, etc.)

Joseph Sandler, of Sandler and Reiff, getting his partisanship on

One of the people I looked at was the chair of the JCRC, Joseph Sandler.  Who is he?  A long term lawyer for the Democratic National Committee. (From his Wiki:  “Joseph Sandler is a Washington, D.C. attorney who served as in-house general counsel for the Democratic National Committee from 1993 to 1998 and continued in this role at his firm Sandler, Reiff & Young through 2009. He now serves as an adviser to prominent Democrats, state parties, and progressive organizations, such as”)

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Linick, Debra
Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Subject: Mayoral forum
To: Bruce Majors

Bruce, thanks for your response. I will need to relook my math on the below. As regards the literature, it can be brought to Sixth & I the day of the event. If someone wishes to drop it off earlier, please let me know so I can provide a heads up to my colleague there, Lisa Yochelson, who would be able to hold onto it until we can display it.

From: Bruce Majors []
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:11 PM
To: Linick, Debra
Subject: Re: Mayoral forum

I do have two questions though:

1) Where should I bring the literature and when?

2) According to the August 12 campaign reports I see online with the Office of Campaign Finance, my friend Carol Schwartz has raised a total of $65,000 which is over 1% but much less than 10% of the over $2 million dollars raised by front runner Muriel Bowser. (Ten percent of $2.1 million would be $210,000.)

So to be able to formulate a rationale by which you exclude me and continue to invite Ms. Schwartz, you will need to tell everyone that your rule is that all candidates must have raised 1% or 2% of the amount raised by the front runner. Is that what you meant to write?

On Wednesday, September 10, 2014, Linick, Debra wrote:

Mr. Majors, thank you for getting in touch with the JCRC about our upcoming forum. The JCRC invites all candidates who have secured at least 10% of the funding of the front runner candidate in a given race in financial reports current at the time of our invitations. Although this does exclude some individuals from speaking roles, we do welcome all candidates to provide written material that we encourage audience members to review and take before or after the program. We allow two separate items per campaign to be displayed. We do not allow soliciting on the premises at Sixth and I, however campaigns have often had a presence on the public sidewalks outside of Sixth and I were our line of attendees forms. I hope that these opportunities might be of interest to you and thank you once again for reaching out to JCRC.

Debra Gold Linick
Director for DC & Northern Virginia
703-893-4007 / 202-552-5355

About the Jewish Community Relations Council
The Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (JCRC) is the public affairs and community relations arm of the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington representing over 100 Jewish organizations and synagogues throughout DC, Maryland, and Virginia. The JCRC focuses on government relations, Israel advocacy, inter-group relations, and social justice.

6101 Montrose Road, Suite 205│Rockville, MD 20852│Tel. 301-770-0881│Fax. 301-770-7553│
Virginia Office: c/o JCCNV, 8900 Little River Turnpike, Fairfax, VA22031-3123│Tel. 703-893-4007│ Fax 703-323-1993
DC Office: 1720 Eye Street, NW Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006│Tel. 202-552-5355

Like us on Facebook , Follow us on Twitter

From: Bruce Majors []
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 9:58 AM
To: Linick, Debra
Subject: Mayoral forum

I am available should you decide to be ńonpartisan in your debate format.

I spoke last night at the Capitol Hill Arts Center mayoral forum, as I had earlier before the National Capitol Area ACLU and other forums, and I think it was viewed as a positive addition.

Bruce Majors

202 704 6401



 Executive Committee

Joseph Sandler
Vice PresidentCookie Hymer Blitz
Vice PresidentMichael Friedman
 Vice President
Erwin Groner
TreasurerBarbara Zakheim
Financial SecretarySam Kaplan
Recording Secretary
Miriam Galston
Executive Director
Ronald Halber

Board of Directors

Ira Bartfield
Rabbi Stephanie Bernstein
Bob Budoff
Jerome Chapman
Andrew Cooper
Behnam Dayanim
Alyssa Dortort
Jack Edlow
Anita Epstein
Robert Epstein
Debra Feuer
Judith Flippen-Anderson
Mennachem Gottlieb
Ralph Grunewald
Peter Haas
Sheldon Klein
Edward Kopf
Julie Krachman
Rebecca Krasnegor
Alyza Lewin
Lucky Malamut
Gerson Panitch
Orlee Panitch
Ronald Paul, M.D.
Rabbi Mindy Portnoy
Thorn Pozen
Daniel Prywes
Edward Rehfeld
Joan Sacarob
Rabbi Arnold Saltzman
Frederick Shapiro
Irving Shapiro
Michael Eric Siegel
Gerald Sommer
Steven David Stone
Stuart Tauber
Susan Turnbull
Irving Varkonyi
Eugene Youngentob 

Past Presidents

Douglas Bloomfield
Stephen N. Gell
Ronald Glancz
Norman Goldstein
Sophie R. Hoffman
Helen Karpa
Hon. Peter B. Krauser
Nathan Lewin
Rabbi Jack Luxemburg
Harvey Reiter
Elaine Senter
Jack A. Serber
Bert A. Silver
Andy Stern
Marcia Weinberg
Susan Weinberg

Libertarians included in many debates in DC, but censored from the two largest

10 Sep

One local area libertarian pointed out to me 6th and I synagogue is having this forum and did not invite me.  

I am being invited to all the smaller forums (Capitol Hill Arts Center, DC Statehood group, National Capital Area ACLU, DC Youth Alliance) but not this one and the only big one, the WAMU/NPR forum.  I am asking you to help me by writing a letter to Debra Linick at and ask that I be included.  I have contacted her and so has the fellow who first pointed this out to me.

I will also work on finding a contact for the WAMU on air debate, moderated by Kojo Namdi.

Thank you.

Whether I am included or not I and any other libertarians who can will be at the event to flyer the audience.

Libertarian mayoral candidate Bruce Majors at Capitol Hill Arts Workshop forum.
(Independent candidate Carol Schwartz and Green Party candidate faith seated.)

———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Subject: You missed a candidate in your mayoral forum invites
To: Bruce Majors <>

Hi Bruce,
The Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington is the organization coordinating the candidate forum. Sixth & I is hosting the event, but we are not determining who is actually participating. I would reach out to Debra Linick ( to inquire about being included.

Hannah O—–, Communications Manager
Sixth & I – 600 I Street, NW – Washington, DC 20001
Direct: 202.266.4864 | Fax: 202.408.5124 | Web: 
Follow us on Twitter @sixthandi
Join our community


To send a protest letter to the NPR/WAMU debate email Kojo Namdi at

D.C. Democratic Party contradictions – what I learned at the Mayoral forums

28 Feb
I’ve attended three mayoral forums so far, the DC for Democracy and the Board of Trade Democrats only forums as an audience member, and the ACLU forum as a candidate.

One funny thing about the forums is that if the group has money most candidates show up, and if it doesn’t only half the candidates do.  Mayor Gray skipped the ACLU, Andy Shallal skipped the ACLU and the Board of Trade (someone told me he had a family emergency),  Muriel Bowser skipped the ACLU and DC for Democracy, Jack Evans skipped DC for Democracy, Carlos Allen skipped the Board of Trade, where there was a seat and name card waiting for him, but I think he may not have known he was invited.

Upcoming forums that include me are the March 10 DC Statehood Committee forum at Martin Luther King library and the neighborhood forum for Takoma Park, DC and surrounding neighborhoods.

Here are the five contradictions I’ve noticed repeated by most of the Democrats:

DC Democratic Party contradiction 1 – Virginia and Maryland suburbanites come to DC and take our good jobs, and we can’t tax their incomes – so we are going to use DC taxpayer dollars to subsidize their metro fares so they can get here easier.

DC Democratic Party contradiction 2 (Tommy Wells edition) – we want urban planning where DC is a walkable city and everyone can walk within 5 minutes to school or work, AND we want more tax dollars spent on metro so employers can all relocate to Georgetown while workers are segregated in Anacostia, with the taxpayer footing the transportation bill.

DC Democratic Party contradiction 3 – We want to make DC tax rates on commercial property, business income, etc etc competitive with Virginia to keep jobs here, AND we can’t name a single program or agency we would cut or eliminate.

DC Democratic Party contradiction 4 (everybody but Tommy Wells edition) – we want to decriminalize pot, in part to end the huge racial disparity in arrests (8 times as likely for black pot users – weirdly twice the national average disparity of 3.7 times as likely!), but we want to keep it a crime or have a high fine for smoking on the street or in public, as black youth are more likely to do than whites.

DC Democratic Party contradiction 5 – the number of homeless living on the streets in DC is rising rapidly, with hypothermia for the homeless, nuisance and crime for everyone else, and hygiene issues for both, AND our Democratic solution to this is to build more and nicer taxpayer funded housing for homeless people who come to DC, without collaboration with Maryland or Virginia, so we can import all the homeless from Richmond to Baltimore and beyond.

Libertarian answers from Bruce Majors for WAMU Mayoral candidate questionnaire

21 Feb
Campaign Questions

How would you create more affordable housing?
I would increase the supply and decrease the price of all housing. Zoning and other regulations increase the cost of producing housing by 30-40%, including for groups that build affordable housing. In D.C. additionally we cannot build tall apartment or condominium buildings, even in neighborhoods where across a river or across a street there are 40 story buildings in Bethesda, Silver Spring, or Arlington. Finally D.C.’s rent control and tenant laws are the last remaining vestige of Nixon’s wage and price controls, left over from when D.C. was administered by the federal government. Rent control and other tenancy laws in D.C. have encouraged investors to sell smaller and older multi-unit buildings off for condominium conversion, leaving only newly constructed luxury rentals as additions to the rental market. As a realtor I frequently run into investors and other realtors who deliberately abandon D.C. for Maryland and Virginia. I would abolish these laws and regulations.
Should green card holders who reside in D.C. be allowed to vote in local elections?
A much higher priority is restoring voting rights to felons who were convicted of non-violent, victimless, crimes. DC residents born in DC have been stripped of rights. My strongest feeling about this green card question is to marvel at its prioritization as a question you would ask in a mayoral race in a city with decades old tragedies of dysfunctional government schools that at least half the students still attend and youth and minority unemployment rates approaching 20% – and higher for minority youth.

I can see either side of this argument but I lean “No.” I believe people already do vote in D.C. without being U.S. citizens by getting a taxpayer identification number and a driver’s license while here on a student or other visa, and then voting, and the system is incompetent to identify them as ineligible. But I do not favor legalizing this activity. I favor free immigration and making it easier to live and work in the U.S., but I believe one should become a citizen to vote.

Do you support campaign finance reform? If so, what reforms would you be in favor of?
Yes. I favor having incumbents signing a contract as a condition of employment stating that they will not accept political action committee contributions in their re-election campaigns, but only contributions from individual donors. I also favor sitting some overall limit for the total contributions an incumbent can accept (say $250,000), again as a condition of employment in their contract.

Other limits of spending or giving by individuals and associations of individuals violates the First Amendment guarantees of freedom or speech and of association. But incumbents, who are the primary beneficiaries of both their positions and financial donations from organized groups, can be limited as a condition of employment.

Additionally I favor barring incumbents, again as part of an employment contract, from being involved in charities, since we have seen them siphon funds from them while using their office to help raise money intended for the charity.

What changes, if any, would you make to the teacher evaluation process?
I favor more parental involvement in teacher evaluation. Ideally this is achieved by expanding charter schools, education voucher programs, and education tax credits so that parents and families have the same freedom of choice they would have when they shop for music lessons or swimming lessons.

For parents whose children remain in traditional government schools it would be good to involve parents in hiring or promoting teachers. One method would be to have parents do end of year teacher assessments, scored and published much as college students evaluate professors at the end of a semester. Teachers who receive low evaluations would not be eligible for promotion, raises, or even contract renewals. They would be invited to seek other employment. I also favor reducing any barriers to parents participating in classrooms; encouraging parents to be on site and involved during the school day would help keep communities informed about how schools and teachers operate.

Where do you stand on the D.C. United stadium proposal?
Against it. I oppose government subsidies or even tax breaks for stadiums, as I do for all businesses. Public policy studies have shown these stadiums do not benefit the local economy. I am opposed to government picking winners and losers, and to the government class being in a position to hand out benefits to cronies and campaign donors. We have corruption in D.C. because we have a $12 billion honey pot that attracts thieves. We must cut the budget, cut spending, and end mayoral or city council discretion or influence over who receives land parcels, grants, subsidies etc.

I favor auctioning off D.C. parcels and closed or abandoned stadiums in open, transparent auctions. I also favor allowing the transfer of some abandoned D.C. properties to non-profits that provide community programs.

If there is a demand for a stadium a consortium of businesses can raise the capital to develop it nearby in an area that will not produce traffic gridlock in D.C.

Where do you stand on the legalization of Marijuana?
For it. We waste money and ruin lives harassing and incarcerating those who use marijuana. I favor decriminalization. I also favor radical reductions in the D.C. regulatory thicket that keeps the local private economy from creating jobs in D.C. for people who do not have law degrees and do not work for federal bureaucracies or lobbying firms. This thicket kept D.C. from having a medical marijuana dispensary until the past few months, over a decade after medical marijuana was legalized. And we still have no producers permitted and licensed to grow plants to supply it.

I also favor a partial “ban the box” where the D.C. government is not allowed to ask prospective employees about their marijuana use or about any past convictions anywhere for any drug crime or other victimless crime (e.g. prostitution).

I would expunge all criminal records of D.C. residents convicted of non-violent victimless crimes, including marijuana sale, possession or use, and pardon the incarcerated.

Republican Party caucus attacks D.C. Libertarian mayoral candidate Majors for … wanting to cut defense budget….?

18 Feb
I actually pledge, if elected Mayor of D.C., NOT to remove any of the D.C. government military bases from Japan or Germany. So the Republican Security Council has nothing to fear! – Libertarian mayoral candidate Bruce Majors

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); = id; js.src = “//”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

Post by Republican Security Council.

Bruce Majors is the Libertarian Party candidate for Mayor of Washington, DC. He describes himself as part of the “Ron Paul Revolution,” and is an anti-war activist. He is well to the left of Obama and Pelosi on defense, foreign policy and war on terror issues. 

Majors has many conservative friends but is often detrimental to the cause. His focus last year was on the Libertarian gubernatorial nominee in Virginia, and once again, the third party vote snatched victory from a Republican. 

Bruce’s hero, Ron Paul, endorsed GOP nominee Ken Cuccinelli, but that made no difference to him. Libertarian candidates have also cost the GOP five U.S. Senate seats (MN, OR, MT, IN and WA). Of the 10 candidates running for Mayor, Majors is the only avowed homosexual.

He completely supports gay marriage and has worked against candidates who back the Defense of Marriage Act. It would be difficult to challenge his leadership on gay issues. 

The surprise is that he has received the lowest rating possible from the Gay and Lesbian Activist Alliance (GLAA). It has nothing to do with gay issues, but GLAA does not like him because Majors opposes increased government spending and taxation. 

The organization said Majors and “his party’s ideological distrust of government is at odds with policies and reforms favored by GLAA. Consequently, many of his responses were interpreted as non-responsive or negative.” 

This is not a unique response. It has happened to other gay Republicans, and to conservative black and Hispanic candidates. The liberal agenda comes first with many of these national organizations.

League of Women Voters questionnaire – Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor

10 Feb
The Tax Revision Commission recently released their findings. What are your positions on the various tax code changes recommended by the Tax Revision Commission? How would you ensure that the tax code would protect less affluent taxpayers while continuing the revitalization of neighborhoods and overall economic development?
The revitalization of neighborhoods and overall economic development in DC owe almost nothing to the activities of any DC politician or the DC government.
Allowing charter schools and vouchers has made it tolerable for young families who are not destitute who previously routinely left DC for the suburbs to stay.  But the enrichment of DC is due almost entirely to the expansion of the federal government, which has imported tens of thousands of new residents in DC at 6 figure salaries.  Long term DC residents, who attended DC public schools, can almost never qualify for these federal jobs, which typically require law or other advanced degrees.
The economic development DC needs is a growing private sector that can employ people, or better yet allow people to start their own business, who had the disadvantage of having attended the average DC public school.  DC also needs to end its extreme lack of diversification and complete dependence on the federal government – in 2013, with the tiny reductions in the growth of federal spending caused by sequestration, commercial real estate vacancies in DC and surrounding areas increased noticeably.
One part, but only one part, of what DC needs to have a growing, diversified, non-government dependent, private sector is lower and flatter taxes.  I suspect that to achieve that we would need a new study of taxes and spending in DC.  (I very much doubt a commission appointed by the current sometimes 12 term dinosaurs who run the DC government, the same people who “nullified” the term limits initiative passed by 66% of the voters in the mid 90s, could find the tax cuts and tax simplification actually needed.)
The Commission has proposed over 60 changes, including a small commuter tax disguised as a “per employee” fee on large employers, which will simply discourage job growth, something DC badly needs as it has double digit unemployment in its poorer Wards and among long term residents who attended DC public schools.  If and when Maryland and Virginia begin to start looking at their own versions of a commuter tax on well-healed DC residents who work at well paying suburban employers, I will oppose any and all such commuter taxes.
What policies do you support to create more affordable housing?
D.C. has a unique mix of policies and economic realities that have driven up housing prices in DC.  The primary one, which the DC government can do little about, is the huge demand for middle and upper middle class housing caused by the expansion of the federal government and its importation of thousands of highly credentialed and well paid technocrats to work in bureaucracy, law, and lobbying.
But the local DC government itself also restricts the supply of housing with a variety of regulations: 1) zoning is estimated to raise housing prices by as much as 30-40% in some cases (; 2) DC prohibits buildings over 10-12 stories, including in Anacostia and other neighborhoods far from the Mall or Capitol, and even in neighborhoods like Friendship Heights, Foggy Bottom, or Takoma Park DC that are literally across the street or across a river from 30 and 40 story buildings in Arlington, Bethesda, or Silver Spring; 3) DC is the one place where Nixon’s wage and price controls were never lifted, in the form of DC rent control, which applies to even very small investors who own 4 or 5 units in DC, discouraging them from investing in or maintaining smaller, older, multi-unit buildings for medium income renters, and instead selling them for condominium conversion or demolition.
I would eliminate all of these laws and regulations that restrict the supply of housing and the agencies that promulgate them.  This would allow a housing market to function normally, where older housing stocks often command form a market of moderate priced rentals, instead of being demolished to build new luxury lofts and commercial buildings.
What changes would you support to improve the election process and increase voter participation?

Implement the term limits referendum passed by the DC voters in 1994 by 66%, illegally nullified by the city government.  Make all current incumbents who have stayed beyond the term limits approved then leave office.

Forbid corporate or union PAC donations to any incumbent as a condition of their accepting continued government employment.
What is the major issue facing our charter schools and the major issue facing our traditional public schools? How would you address these issues?

We need to ensure that school choice is not stymied by anti-reform forces that have profited for too long by denying families choice, making children their wards, and milking them for tax dollars while delivering substandard education.

DC should expand its voucher program, add education tax credits, make both program apply to home schooling, and facilitate the growth of charters.  Abandoned and underused school buildings and other government property should be transferred to charters or other non-profits, or sold off.

Libertarian candidates forum schedule

1 Feb

Libertarians have, as usual, been excluded from a number of forums with increasingly legalistic and more complicated rationalizations, now that we have permanent ballot access and a primary with 7 ballot qualified candidates on the April primary ballot.

In the past gatekeepers and censors protecting DC’s one party monopoly would just say “no one allowed unless they are already on the ballot by April or are in a recognized party.”

This year one Georgetown mayoral forum at Dumbarton Oaks moderated by Current newspapers publisher Davis Kennedy was held with so little advance notice in early January that Libertarians didn’t even really have time to complain about the false advertising – that it was actually a partisan Democrats’ only forum, heavy with Democrats who were polling at 1% and skipped by some of the major Democratic candidates.

Then a coalition of groups led by DC for Democracy held a forum at the 6th and I synagogue (video previously posted here below). The DC4Ders claimed when asked if Libertarians were invited that only candidates in primaries that were contested would be invited. But they were caught in a fib – they in fact only invited Democrats, and two Green Party candidates who were challenging each other in a Green Party primary showed up and claimed a right to speak. And once again the DC4Ders forum was attended by the incumbent mayor and a bunch of Democrats polling at 1% or 2%. Major challengers Jack Evans and Muriel Bowser skipped it.

Similarly the allegedly non-partisan or bi-partisan Kennedy Political Union at American University is holding a mayoral forum in February, and spending the AU corporate dollar advertising it to surrounding neighborhoods. But they only invited Democrats; it’s a partisan forum for the Democratic primary falsely advertised as a mayoral candidates forum. When I contacted them to ask if other parties would be invited, AU public relations director Andrew Huff said “only ballot qualified candidates are invited, so I guess it is in that sense a Democratic forum.”. When I pointed out that I AM a ballot qualified candidate on the April primary ballot he wrote back “oh, I guess it is just for Democrats” and agreed to advertise it more truthfully in the future. One wonders if once again major Democratic candidates will just skip the KPU forum, mainly before students who are not DC voters, but enjoy the advertising money AU spends publicizing their names in advertising to surrounding neighborhoods – a nice gift to grateful incumbents?

Libertarians will be in a growing number of forums in February and March including:

Pranav Badhwar, Ward 6 city council debate, February 20, Capitol Hill Presbyterian Church, 201 4th Street SE, 7 pm

Bruce Majors, Takoma Park/Brightwood/Shepherd Park neighborhood forum by Neighbors Inc. in February and before the ACLU in March (check back for locations and dates).

Some "ballot qualified" candidates are more equal that others…

22 Jan
Mr. Huff responded later saying they would now advertise their Mayoral Forum as a Democrats Only Mayoral Forum.

Of course, of the 8 Democrats who are “ballot qualified” some are polling in the 1-2% region far below the 6-7% DC area Libertarian candidates have been earning the past two years in actual elections.

At least we are on a first name basis!


Good morning, Bruce.

KPU forwarded me your email, as my office has been assisting them in planning the upcoming DC Mayoral debate on campus.

The 2/12 debate is open to all candidates who qualified for the April 1 ballot, of which there are now 8. In a sense, I suppose that this makes it a Democratic primary debate.

Hope this helps.



Andrew Huff | Director of Community Relations
The American University | Washington, DC 20016
p: 202.885.2167 | f: 202.885.3278

From: “Chandler D. Thornton”
To: Andrew Huff ,
Date: 01/18/2014 04:12 PM
Subject: Fwd: New contact form received

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayo”
Date: January 18, 2014 at 3:43:16 PM EST
Subject: New contact form received

You have received a new contact form message.
Name : Bruce Majors, Libertarian for Mayor
Email :
Message : Is the February forum a mayoral candidates forum or. Democratic primary mayoral candidates forum?

It is being advertised as the former.

Thanks for any clarification.

Here is my response:

I am on the April ballot.

The Libertarians have a primary on the ballot on April 1.

The DC Libertarian Party has had permanent ballot status since 2012, when I ran for Congress and received 17,000 votes.

Our Ward 6 Libertarian candidate is participating in the Ward 6 candidate forum February 20.

I would ask that if your candidate forum is open only to Democrats you advertise it as a forum for Democratic candidates, not for candidates or for ballot qualified candidates, since I (and others) are both of the latter.

Else I will have to point out when people ask me about it that your advertising is fraudulent, even if out of ignorance.

Thank you.

——————————————————————————————————————So American Unversity is excluding me, so far, from it’s mayoral forum, which it has been advertising as a “mayoral forum” not a “Democratic Party forum.”. Their PR person said it is only open to ballot qualified candidates. When I pointed out I am ballot qualified, on the April primary ballot, he responded that “oops, it is just for Democrats.”. He promised that in the thousands of dollars worth of advertising theyare spending in the Current newspapers they will now try to label them as a Democratic candidates forum. Two interesting facts: 1) several of the 8 Democrats are at 1 or 2% in the polls, far below the 6% I got in an actual election in DC in 2012 or the 7% Sarvis got last year in VA and 2) the 8 candidates AU is spending thousands promoting in ads for this forum include the incumbent mayor and at least three incumbent city council members running for mayor – and AU gets a variety of benefits from the DC government.

DC corruption more widespread than known

15 Aug

From WaPo (Michael Debonis and other authors):
Thompson boosted the mayoral campaign of Linda W. Cropp, a Democrat, seven years ago with more than $100,000 in alleged illegal spending, the people said. He allegedly spent smaller amounts on behalf of former council member Michael A. Brown and the insurgent council candidacies of Patrick D. Mara, a Republican, and Mark H. Long, an independent, in 2008. And he allegedly spent still more in 2010 for council hopefuls Jeff Smith and Kelvin Robinson, both Democrats, and in 2011 for council member Vincent B. Orange (D-At Large).
Though the sums of money were significantly smaller than the amount that went into what has become known as the“shadow campaign” for Gray in 2010, such expenditures could reveal a pattern in which Thompson appears to have wielded vast influence for years over the District’s political process.
Cropp and Mara denied any knowledge of the payments, as Gray has done regarding the alleged secret effort to help him in 2010. The other candidates either couldn’t be reached or, through attorneys, declined to comment.
That keeps the focus of a
21 / 2-year investigation into political corruption in the District, for now, on Thompson.
Prosecutors appear to be methodically building a case against Thompson, who was for years one of the District’s largest contractors and who, court records suggest, is the subject of a grand jury investigation.
An individual matching Thompson’s description has been mentioned on numerous occasions in court documents as allegedly funding the “shadow campaign” for Gray (D) as well as arranging illegal “straw” donations made with his own money but disclosed as coming from employees and other associates.
While declining to comment on any particular allegations of wrongdoing, Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, issued a statement Friday that said: “It is clear from our office’s public corruption prosecutions over the past several years that we will not excuse criminal activity as business as usual. We plan to continue vigorously investigating and prosecuting crimes that deprive D.C. voters of the fair and transparent elections that they deserve.”
Most recently, Thompson secretly paid for T-shirts, campaign signs and field workers in 2011 to help return Orange to office, the individuals asserted. In that campaign, Orange relied on some of the same players implicated in the parallel campaign for Gray the prior year.