[Lnc-business] Previous Notice - Constructive Candidate Portrayal

[Scott L.]

"ARTICLE 3: PURPOSES

 

The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles
embodied in the Statement of Principles by: functioning as a libertarian
political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or
movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by building a
political party that elects Libertarians to public office; chartering
affiliate parties throughout the United States and promoting their growth
and activities; nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of
the United States, and supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for
political office; and, entering into public information activities."

 

 

Dr Feldman:

 

Our Bylaws require the LNC, Inc.  to promote winning elections, not spoiling
them.

 

Also, promoting our role as spoilers waves a big red flag in front of the
noses of incumbent State Legislators and gives them a perfect excuse to pass
legislation that makes it more difficult for third parties to retain ballot
access.

 

 

"The APRC shall review and advise whether public communications of the Party
violate our bylaws, Policy Manual or advocate moving public policy in a
different direction other than a libertarian direction, as delineated by the
Party Platform."

 

 

As you can see, the APRC does not review public communications for their
effectiveness in achieving our Purposes Bylaw.

 

Therefore, that responsibility falls onto the LNC.

 

   Scott Lieberman

 

 

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

 

"I disagree.  Out p.r. people  should be skilled enough to see what works
best.  If you think you have better ideas, then present the evidence and
educate them.  Micro-managing p.r. by LNC policy makes no sense to me.
Shouldn't this be an issue for the communications committee?

 

   Dr Feldman"

 

 

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

 

> Rich,

> 

> Thanks for the good question.

> 

> The portion of my proposal in question reads (caps added for emphasis),
"They shall not be portrayed as spoilers, either directly or by implication,

> such as NOTING that the candidate's performance spans the margin between
two other candidates."

> 

> With this wording, I would interpret it as the latter of the two things
you asked about.  Poll results can be shown, even if they happen to
demonstrate

> that the candidate spans the gap, so long as that detail is not the point
of what they are saying.  The surrounding text should not about some
"spoiler"

> angle of that data.  The news should rather be that the candidate may be
poised to retain our ballot access, or that the polling may suggest we'll

> see better results than past similar candidates, or some other positive
news, etc.

> 

> -Alicia

 

 

 

 

> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Rich Tomasso <rtomasso at lpnh.org> wrote:

>> 

>> On 11/29/2014 4:59 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:

>>> 

>>> This new policy would require that our public communications portray our

>>> candidates as people seeking to change public policy by getting

>>> themselves elected, not as spoilers who get their kicks by just being

>>> monkey wrenches in some other candidate's election plans.

>> 

>> 

>> Just to clarify, with your proposed language, would an article

>> highlighting a poll showing the Libertarian candidate polling at greater

>> than the difference b/t his or her opponents be considered in violation
of

>> this? Or should there simply be no text pointing out their percentage is

>> greater than the difference of the other candidates?

>> 

>> 

>> ~Rich

>>  Region 8 Rep

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20141207/ff6786ef/attachment-0002.html>