By: Stephanie Soucek – Door County Chair
What role should third-party organizations play in the Republican Party? It used to be more a matter of legality than an opinion on strategy, but ever since a Supreme Court ruling opened the door further on coordination over door-knocking between political parties, campaigns, and third-party groups; Republicans (including the Trump campaign) have adjusted their strategy and are able to work more with organizations like Turning Point and America PAC.
Turning Point has become more of a presence in Wisconsin since that time, and, in theory I agree with the strategy. However, long-time Republican volunteers believe Turning Point is using it as an opportunity to attempt a takeover of the infrastructure of the state Republican Party, using the county party apparatus and volunteers to implement their efforts while refusing to share data and metrics with the party. They do donate to county parties—and again, in theory, it might be a good thing. In practice, I have seen it play out differently.
I will add that since becoming a county chairman in 2019, and even before that, I have happily worked with numerous coalition groups. I always felt like we were working towards the same goals but in parallel lanes. I never experienced hostility from any of them or felt like they were competing against me or the party. Coalition groups do play an important role in helping us win.
So why the controversy over Turning Point? First, I want to point out that good people have been involved with their organization, and they do some good things. Turning Point generates enthusiasm among young people in particular. They put on exciting events, are present on college campuses, and battle the culture war. They have a heavy social media presence and do podcasts to talk about relevant issues–all good things.
But there are some areas of concern that I think are important to address. Strangely, people who have raised concerns about Turning Point will often get accused by some of their supporters of hating young people or being afraid of Turning Point because they are a “threat to the establishment.” Okay, I believe those are silly arguments meant to deflect from legitimate concerns. I support organizations like Young Republicans and Young America’s Foundation and their efforts–I support getting young people involved in the party! I support challenging the status quo, and I support many of President Trump’s efforts to go after government waste, fraud, and abuses. So no, that’s not the reason.
When I talk with people behind the scenes who share my concerns, it’s often in hushed tones, where people don’t want to bring these issues up publicly or even in private discussions with others out of fear of being ostracized or retaliated against politically. When any organization becomes powerful enough that the average grassroots person is afraid to speak out when they disagree, it’s a problem.
But if a third-party organization claims to be THE solution and is looking for ways to get into leadership positions in the party (from county party leadership positions all the way up to state party chairman—see the Mount Vernon Project), we need to know if they have the credibility and results to back it up—for the sake of the party and the cause. This shouldn’t be controversial.
We shouldn’t be operating under false illusions. We should look at the results from some of the counties (who make up a huge segment of voters) where Turning Point supporters have taken over the past few years.
What about the results in Arizona when Turning Point supporters took over the Republican Party there?
If we’re going to scrutinize the party, we should also be free to scrutinize the organization that some believe wants to take over the party.
Some other valid questions are worth asking: Why did Elon Musk’s PAC become more involved in the operations and assert partial control over Turning Point’s finances last fall?
Is it possible they weren’t meeting their metrics? Why doesn’t Turning Point share their metrics (door-knocking numbers, phone calls, etc) like other coalition groups do? Why don’t they share their data with the party? If they were largely responsible for the win in November (as some claim), are they largely responsible for the loss in April?
There are also questions over financial disclosures. According to a recent Wispolitics
article, “Campaign finance experts and operatives told WisPolitics the group’s filing raised questions over whether it had (allegedly) failed to adequately report its efforts, inflated what it did during the campaign or had found some loophole to shield from public view what it did. Numerous efforts to reach the group seeking more details on its efforts in Wisconsin were unsuccessful.”
If campaign finance experts had questions like these, it seems legit to address them. Brett Galaszewski did comment to me in response to the Wispolitics article, “We spent on paid ballot chase staff through our 501(c)(4). Not Turning Point PAC.” Their 501(c)(4) is Turning Point Action (Versus the TPUSA arm of the organization which operates differently).
But 501(c)(4)’s still have to report their expenditures even if they don’t have to disclose their donors. Why the lack of transparency?
And even Elon Musk’s America PAC shares data with Data Trust which helps the party.
It would help us improve if various efforts are producing data that all goes into the same database. It doesn’t make sense to duplicate our efforts or have county parties outsource a large amount of data to a third-party organization where the RPW (who charters those county parties) doesn’t have access to it. For the record, county parties can use different apps and data sources, but they should be sharing it with the party in the end.
Lastly, I will add that I was offered a $5,000 check for my county party by Turning Point last December when they met with me to discuss how they wanted to help my county party. After contemplating and discussing with my executive committee, we decided to turn it down.
If we did take the money, I didn’t want to feel obligated to do certain things with or for Turning Point. I did work with them at times all last year and was happy to do so where I felt comfortable—but I simply wanted to keep operating within the framework of the party and not outsource our data/efforts. Plus, I had valid reasons to believe the data wasn’t any better.
I also had concerns that if we didn’t take the money, I might pay a political price for it. I was told by someone who supports Turning Point that I was foolish for not taking the money. And in part, I do feel like it was used against me.
I will end with a quote by Brandon Straka who started the Walk Away movement, in reference to him questioning the efforts of a particular third-party activist on our side. “When I left the left and became a conservative, I left the left because I was feeling choked and strangled by an ideology and political party that no longer cared about the truth and would no longer allow questions to be asked, conversations to be had. The left would no longer allow me to challenge the narrative that was being put forward when we had clear and glaring evidence that the narrative was false.”
I feel like I’m challenging a popular narrative/organization right now, and it’s uncomfortable. But I have always believed it’s important to speak truth to power, and that’s what I feel like I’m doing by writing this article. We should be willing to work with third parties to help us win—as long as it’s done legally and as long as it’s based on honesty and getting good results. We should never be afraid to ask questions or challenge the narrative. It may cost you temporarily, but at least you can know you’re staying true to your convictions and thinking for yourself.
Editor’s note: We reached out for comment from Turning Point Action on this story, as well as from three supporters of Turning Point in Wisconsin, but did not receive a response.
