Howard Rich

Early life and education Rich attended the George W. Wingate High School in Brooklyn, New York. While a senior, he earned the New York State Regents scholarship. He studied economics at Baruch College in New York City. He studied investing at the New York University Stern School of Business. Rich initially had a plumbing contracting business, but used its revenues to buy real estate. He began a pattern of buying Manhattan properties, fixing them up, and selling them. In 1970, he bought a multi-residential building. During the next two decades he bought more buildings and modernized them. Rich described his real estate strategy: "I bought buildings when no one else wanted them, then I sold them."

Political activism Libertarian Party Before 1983, Rich was active in the Libertarian Party and worked with Charles Koch to promote small-government and free-market causes. After 1983, Rich left the Libertarian Party and continued his activism with private groups. In 1990, Rich and his wife, Andrea, took over the Libertarian Review Foundation and renamed it the Center for Independent Thought.

Non-partisan activism In 1992, Rich met Bill Wilson and the two worked together on a variety of causes. Rich financed Wilson's efforts at U.S. Term Limits, Parents in Charge and Americans for Limited Government. Rich explained his mission was to "advance individual freedom and create an atmosphere where we restore the Founders' concepts of property rights and free markets." Rich became more politically active in the movement to limit government beginning about 1992. This group has been described as non-partisan. It has been critical of President Barack Obama. Wilson was quoted as saying "It isn't one issuehealth care, or cap and trade, or one or another appointee ... It's that government consumes more and more of what we call personal liberty." The organization has also criticized former president George W. Bush for "egregious federal power-grabs" regarding the USA Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and Medicare. He is chairman of U.S. Term Limits. In an editorial, Rich posed the question: "Who's in chargethe people or politicians?" He criticized political connections between political contributors and government contractors and wrote: "When government contracts are being handed out, all qualified companies should have a fair chance at getting public business, not just companies that donate to the re-election campaigns of entrenched politicians or hold cocktail parties at expensive restaurants in their honor." He believes term limits are a way to restore popular control over government. He wrote: "The longer politicians are in office, the more likely they are to rip us off for their own benefitrewarding the donors who funded their campaigns and the special interests who keep them in power rather than the people they should be serving." He wrote that term limits force politicians "to represent the people instead of advancing their own careers." According to Rich, he and his groups were successful in creating term limits for 15 state legislatures. He was agitated by plans of the New York City Council to undo term-limit laws passed by a referendum, and compared a possible repeal to undoing the smoking ban. Rich opposed New York City mayor Bloomberg's quest for a third mayoral term. He opposes career politicians generally. In 2008, a senior senator of the legislature of Nebraska blamed Rich and term limits for his "forced retirement," but Rich responded in a letter to the editor of The New York Times that "term limits have never been aimed at any one individual, but rather at an underlying culture of abuse that invariably tends to place the voracious appetites of government institutions over the best interests of the people they are there to serve."

Property rights The Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision ruled that states could, at their discretion, decide whether it was permissible to permit property to be taken from some owners under the doctrine of eminent domain and given to other owners. There was a public backlash. Rich helped engineer and encourage a number of ballot initiatives in state elections in 2006 to rein in such takings. Rich said "I believe that property rights in many respects have been taken away from many property owners." As a result, in 2006 many states particularly in the west put initiatives on the ballot restricting eminent domain. Rich helped fund activities in favor of these initiatives.

Rich supported a ballot initiative in California called Proposition 90 which prohibited cities from "using their condemnation powers to transfer property from one owner to the other." It generated significant controversy. By September 2006, Rich gave to advocate "yes" on Proposition 90, dubbed by proponents as the Protect Our Homes Act, while various opponents gave to advocate against it. A second estimate was that Rich gave via the Fund for Democracy and Americans for Limited Government to foster advocacy of eminent domain initiatives in California, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Idaho and Montana. Another estimate was that by November 2006, Rich spent promoting state initiatives. According to a second source, prices paid for signatures to petition the ballot initiatives ranged from $1 in California to $3 in Arizona. Critics of the property rights proposals suggest the downside is "voting to destroy all land-use regulation."

In 2006, Americans for Limited Government and other groups spent millions trying to get property rights ballot initiatives in western states such as California, Washington, Idaho, and Arizona. One estimate is that Rich contributed as much as $11 million to support property rights initiatives on ballots throughout much of the West. The ballot initiatives succeeded in nine of eleven states but failed in California and Idaho. In 2006, three of Rich's budget-trimming "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" proposals failed, but nine of his twelve eminent domain relief referendums passed overwhelmingly including states such as Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina.

Education reform In 2000 Rich founded the Legislative Education Action Drive, or LEAD, which focused on enacting school choice legislation across the country. Rich is also chairman of the Parents in Charge Foundation.

Board memberships Rich is on the board of the Club for Growth.

Judges Rich also champions the position of holding "judges accountable to the rule of law." Rich later referred to the event as "the most painful period of my business life."

Reception Rich has been described as being attacked by left-leaning activists. One reporter for the National Review wrote, "'Howie Rich from New York City' has become the Left's latest whipping boy." One pamphlet accused Rich of "dirty tactics, hidden money streams, and shadowy operatives." He's been accused of being a "special interest group" and of operating a "tangled extremist web." Rich responded: "I have been fortunate enough to have been successful in business, and I want to do something in this life to advance liberty." Rich said: "It's very difficult in many of these states, and very expensive, to get these measures on the ballot ... All I have done here, for the most part, is provide seed money. All of these initiatives are left up to the voters. That's what these people, who consider money evil, are not willing to address. It's the voters in these states who ultimately make the decisions."

A news report from National Public Radio (NPR) on the show NOW on PBS accused Rich and his organizations of "secretly providing major funding for ballot measures". Rich was accused of using his political advocacy as a means to "shield his portfolio from sticky-fingered bureaucrats" but he countered "It's a crock" and said "I own no real estate in any of the 12 states where we had property-rights initiatives on the ballot." Rich has been vocal about his financial support of libertarian-related causes. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote "real estate mogul Howie Rich … makes no secret of his desire to rein in the power of government." Rich's letters to prominent liberal contributors of liberal causes told them that he's watching these donations; the letter read as follows: "As a donor to one or more of these organizations and efforts, you have been able to engage in these activities without notice, operating in relative obscurity … I am writing to inform you that this will no longer be the case." There was a threat of exposing donations which violated laws or which were being funneled for illegal purposes. According to a newspaper account afterwards, the letters from both sides tried to discourage donors to so-called 527 groups which is "lightly regulated money" that "swamped the 2004 election."

Awards In 2000, he received the Herman W. Lay Memorial Award for work in the educational arena.