[Lnc-business] Treasurer's Report

[Joshua Katz]

B. I still think it's worth knowing the applicable laws as a scenario can
arise in which spending for some particular international purpose makes
more sense than the best available domestic use. I assume this was an open
question. I apologize if it was meant only for the Treasurer.

As a side note, B, was the better of the two options, to me, in general. It
is not necessarily the best answer.

Joshua Katz
On Sep 15, 2014 11:12 AM, "Scott L." <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
> “I asked Ms Edwards about FEC restrictions about spending federal funds
> for international political activities. She will need to check, but at
> first glance, we probably can spend federal money on international
> activity. Of course, the LNC cannot accept contributions from foreign
> nationals. Ms. Edwards brought up the possibility of setting up a separate
> entity for international activities that can accept non-federal funds.
> However, the LNC and its directors are restricted from soliciting
> non-federal funds.
>
>       Tim Hagan”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Which of these two choices do you think will better help the LP achieve
> its unofficial Mission Statement of electing more Libertarians to public
> office in the United States?
>
>
>
> A.     Spending money for international political activities
>
>
>
> B.      Spending money to help the LP of the United States achieve 40
> state ballot access on Dec 1, 2016?
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Scott Lieberman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20140915/6016b7c0/attachment.html>