From my book Funding Liberty
LAMA used the clever approach to disaffiliation, namely changing the rules so that the PVLA was no longer eligible to be an affiliate. Quoting from my book Funding Liberty:
“At the start of 2000, the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts Board, which was also controlled by the eastern group, changed its by-laws. They added a new requirement for LAMA affiliates. As a condition for continued affiliation, they demanded that affiliates require their officers and board representative to register to vote as Libertarians. The extant PVLA By-Laws allowed any member, including people who could not legally register to vote (e.g., the Connecticut resident), to be an officer. I have heard that the LAMA Board recognized in their debate that their rule change would potentially create a difficulty with having the PVLA as an affiliate. I dutifully advised the PVLA what LAMA wanted. Indeed, as a matter of courtesy, I made the motion to amend the PVLA By-Laws as LAMA had requested.
Debate in the PVLA centered on the utility of LAMA affiliation. It did not help the motion that PVLA members recalled LAMA support for other candidates and LAMA unwillingness to seat the PVLA’s representative to the LAMA Board. The requested change in PVLA By-Laws was unanimously rejected by PVLA members. The PVLA sent LAMA’s Secretary a short letter noting that LAMA had changed their conditions for affiliation. Because the PVLA did not qualify under LAMA’s new rules, the PVLA understood that LAMA had discontinued their affiliation with the PVLA. The PVLA never actually got a response from LAMA. Apparently affiliation was not a significant issue with LAMA, because several months later LAMA Board members had to be reminded that the PVLA had responded to LAMA’s request. Indeed, at a considerably later date PVLA members began to encounter reports, not circulated by the PVLA, that the PVLA had seceded from LAMA, when in fact LAMA had withdrawn from a relationship that the PVLA had no interest in ending. Our actual letter to the LAMA Board had read:
George Phillies — Chair
87-6 Park Avenue
Worcester MA 01605
March 8, 2000
Dear LAMA Board,
The Pioneer Valley Libertarian Association has received your communication as forwarded by the LAMA Board of Directors, indicating that the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts has imposed on groups wishing to be local Chapters of LAMA a new condition, namely a requirement that: “all Chapter Officers and the Executive Board Representative must register to vote in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as members of the Libertarian Party or the Libertarian party designation, whichever the Secretary of the Commonwealth recognizes.”
At its Annual Election Meeting of March 8, 2000, the Pioneer Valley Libertarian Association considered your new condition for groups wishing to be Chapters of LAMA.
The Pioneer Valley Libertarian Association chose not to amend its By-Laws along the lines you have proposed.
We understand that you — the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts — are therefore severing your connection with us — the Pioneer Valley Libertarian Association. We of course wish you our best with respect to our common desire to bring the Libertarian future of peace, prosperity, and freedom to the world. We remain
Yours for Liberty!
This is from before I realized (in 2007) that libertarian spoiler votes were the prime mover for repealing and modifying bad laws. But a comparable situation I have tracked is that of the American Translators Association. In 1980 there was a revolt such that only those who passed a translation test were allowed to vote. This made it difficult for impostors–good at trading but not competent to translate–to control the association. Since that time the agencies have striven to regain the upper hand, packing the suffrage with their pets and so amending the bylaws as to ensure agencies transform the thing into an Association of Translation Agencies, crowding out freelancers. It is not a pretty picture.