[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit

Wes Benedict wes.benedict at lp.org
Fri Dec 11 12:13:30 EST 2015


The LNC discussed, debated, and adopted specific goals this term, not 
the "implied goals" Mr. Olsen refers to. It was probably before you 
joined the LNC. I realize you joined to replace another member that 
resigned.

They're in at least one of the minutes here: 
http://www.lp.org/leadership/lnc-meeting-archives

You might want to read all of the minutes for this term, because they 
have a lot about ballot access in them, as well as other things.

Wes Benedict, Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
*New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314*
(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership

On 12/11/2015 11:59 AM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
> Wes,
>
> No, I definitely did not know that.  It seems like it would be the 
> case as presumably we would get more efficient with our efforts over 
> time, but I've not seen any data to illustrate that point.
>
> In case I've come across poorly, I don't want to seem as if I object 
> to the idea or anything like that.  I just want to encourage the body 
> to have specifically defined strategic goals rather than the "implied 
> goals" that Mr. Olsen was referring to.  As an advocate of the devil, 
> while ballot access may be cheaper, one could still ask what it's end 
> goal is.  I would argue that getting a single person elected to a 
> partisan office would have a far greater impact than simply allowing 
> others (who will realistically never win an election) to run for 
> office through our ballot access measures.  I concede one affects the 
> other and am not making a case for either, but just illustrating how 
> the strategy could differ if it were defined that way.
>
> For the time being, I'm delighted to see the party working so hard to 
> help Oklahoma, am totally behind the effort, and hope that it provides 
> the party with a big morale boost and helps boost the party throughout 
> the state.
>
> -Kevin Ludlow
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org 
> <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>> wrote:
>
>     Kevin, did you know that ballot access has gotten easier and
>     cheaper, year after year, as a result of our decades of
>     sustainable efforts?
>
>     Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>     Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>     *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314*
>     (202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232>,
>     wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>
>     facebook.com/libertarians <http://facebook.com/libertarians>
>     @LPNational
>     Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
>     On 12/10/2015 10:57 PM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
>>     I appreciate the variety of voices responding to my questions.
>>     And to Mr. Olsen, 6 paragraphs were most certainly welcome :)
>>
>>     I apologize for not being on the call on Monday.  Unfortunately
>>     work does occasionally take precedent over my extra-curricular
>>     activities - political or otherwise.  I was also fairly confident
>>     the vote would pass and of course it did.  So regardless of
>>     anyone's position on the matter, here we are.
>>
>>     The gist of what I was getting at was simply to have the
>>     cost/benefits explained to me.  Mr. Tomaso nailed one simply by
>>     citing the overall morale boost that ballot access provides.
>>     While perhaps difficult to measure, there is no doubt relevance
>>     to the claim.  Mr. Olsen, however, adds a tick to the "con" side
>>     in that he cites the difficulties with the sustainability of
>>     ballot access.
>>
>>     In most any business model one would likely be advised to stray
>>     AWAY from something that is unsustainable.  It becomes difficult
>>     to predict costs, there is always an element of being
>>     unsuccessful, and meanwhile there exist goals that actually ARE
>>     sustainable should one direct their effort that way.
>>
>>     Perhaps I'm still just too new, but it simply struck me that I
>>     could not really weigh the cost/benefits of the financial
>>     decision we were about to make in any practical way.  I have
>>     since been informed of 1 or 2 costs and 1 or 2 benefits, but it
>>     still seems the Libertarian party should really be making
>>     decisions almost exclusively upon this kind of analysis and
>>     having a specifically defined strategy rather than an implied one
>>     as Mr. Olsen points out.
>>
>>     Anyway, thank you all for listening and for responding to my
>>     questions / concerns.  I appreciate your time.
>>
>>     -Kevin Ludlow
>>     Region 7
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Scott L. <scott73 at earthlink.net
>>     <mailto:scott73 at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         I am very glad that the Regional Representative from Colorado
>>         is asking us to look at and evaluate “This implied goal, or
>>         objective if you prefer, is 50+ state ballot access for the
>>         Libertarian party.”
>>
>>         Unfortunately, now is not a good time for a full-blown
>>         analysis of the issues that the Regional Representative is
>>         asking us to look at.
>>
>>         We are only 6 months away from the end of our LNC term, and
>>         only 6 months away from the beginning of the General Election
>>         portion of the 4 year Presidential Election Cycle.  I think
>>         we have a moral commitment to our members to maximize the
>>         number of states that the *2016 *Libertarian Presidential
>>         Nominee is on the ballot, obviously constrained by how much
>>         money we have available to pay for signatures.
>>
>>         However – the next LNC *should *start discussing the topic of
>>         ballot access at their very first full-weekend meeting of the
>>         next LNC term.  That way, they have at least 6 months before
>>         they even have to begin collecting signatures to get a
>>         candidate on the ballot for vote test purposes for the Nov.
>>         2017 elections (VA, NJ, and a couple of others).
>>
>>         That being said, I disagree with the Regional
>>         Representative’s statement that “Since specific strategies
>>         and or objectives have not been established, the vacuum is
>>         filled with the implied objective of achieving 50+ state
>>         ballot access. While a noble and legitimately political
>>         objective, it suffers from several problems;  the most
>>         significant of which is the problem of being unachievable on
>>         a permanent, or even semi-permanent, basis .”
>>
>>         The Republican and Democrat Parties have permanent ballot
>>         status, because they understand that if they removed ballot
>>         access for the other major party in even one state, that
>>         “accomplishment” could be turned into a nationwide scandal. 
>>         But until the LP becomes a major party (1) the  Libertarian
>>         Party will not have “permanent” ballot access in any state.
>>
>>
>>         However, we CAN achieve semi-permanent ballot access in 50
>>         states, or darn close to that number.  To do that, the LNC
>>         needs to stop focusing on October ballot access, and instead
>>         focus on December ballot access.  That probably means
>>         sacrificing ballot access in a few states BEFORE an election
>>         in an even-numbered year, and using the money saved to lobby
>>         or sue for lower vote tests in states that have ridiculously
>>         high vote tests (Alabama and Connecticut come to mind).
>>
>>         Scott Lieberman
>>
>>         1. Defined by the FEC, for example, as receiving 25% of the
>>         vote for President
>>
>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         *From:*Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>>         <mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Norm
>>         Olsen
>>         *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2015 11:50 AM
>>
>>
>>         *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>         *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
>>
>>         Hello Kevin . . .
>>
>>         >> why we should be focusing so many efforts on Oklahoma?
>>
>>         I’d like to take a shot at answering your question.  I have
>>         been asking similar questions for five years now.  I could
>>         write a book in response.  But alas; you ask for a
>>         paragraph.  And a short one at that.  Would I be unreasonable
>>         to supply five or six paragraphs?
>>
>>         The LNC does not have a specifically defined strategy; nor
>>         does it have a stated set of objectives.  The indisputable
>>         result is that it does not have a list of tactics (i.e. well
>>         defined activities) to pursue to achieve any of these
>>         undefined objectives. While attempts have been made, I am
>>         unaware of any meeting that has established such
>>         strategies/objectives or any writing in the bylaws or policy
>>         manual that establishes such. (The policy manual lists a set
>>         of “core activities”, but that’s about it.)
>>
>>         Nevertheless, the LNC is not totally rudderless.  There
>>         exists an implied basic goal and implied tactics to achieve
>>         the implied goal.  I became aware of this implied goal
>>         (although I did not immediately recognize the significance of
>>         it) at my very first LNC meeting in November of 2010 in New
>>         Orleans.  At that meeting, the following motion was adopted:
>>
>>         /https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf/(printed
>>         page 17, .pdf page 17):
>>
>>         . . . moved to authorize the Executive Committee to encumber
>>         expenses for ballot access,
>>
>>         notwithstanding the provisions of section 1.05 of the Policy
>>         Manual, for the year 2011.
>>
>>         [Section 1.05 of the Policy Manual is that section which
>>         limits Executive Committee encumbrances to that which has
>>         been budgeted.]
>>
>>         This motion was made, seconded, *and the question called* in
>>         a time frame of about 35 seconds.  It was approved by a 11-1
>>         roll call vote.  This implied goal has been recertified,
>>         implicitly, in every budget resolution pass by the LNC in the
>>         last 5 years. The Ballot Access Petitioning Expense line
>>         typically receives 65% to 85% of the budgeted discretion
>>         funds in each year. You participated in the budget
>>         discussions of the 2016 budget where Ballot Access
>>         Petitioning Expense was allocated 70% of the funds available
>>         for allocation among the Policy Manual’s “core activities”.
>>
>>         This implied goal, or objective if you prefer, is 50+ state
>>         ballot access for the Libertarian party, with some added
>>         emphasis on Presidential elections.  On the surface, this
>>         appears to be a noteworthy objective. However, it has been
>>         adopted implicitly rather than explicitly.  That is why the
>>         question you asked comes up from time to time.  Gaining
>>         ballot access in all 50 states is the primary focus of the
>>         LNC, and remains a primary focus in fundraising efforts. 
>>         (It’s hard to raise funds to purchase office supplies, much
>>         easier to raise funds for ballot access.) And so, given the
>>         improved chance to gain ballot access in Oklahoma, even if it
>>         is for a single election cycle, it is not surprising that the
>>         effort is getting a large share of our attention and
>>         resources.  Given that this has been the primary focus of
>>         what the LNC does, and has been doing for at least two (if
>>         not four) decades, it is something we must demonstrate
>>         success at or we begin to lose the respect of our members and
>>         donors.
>>
>>         That answers the primary question, but the leaves the follow
>>         up questions begging for an answer.
>>
>>         Since specific strategies and or objectives have not been
>>         established, the vacuum is filled with the implied objective
>>         of achieving 50+ state ballot access.  While a noble and
>>         legitimately political objective, it suffers from several
>>         problems;  the most significant of which is the problem of
>>         being unachievable on a permanent, or even semi-permanent,
>>         basis .  Thus, the LNC has a single overpowering objective
>>         which is absorbs most all of its resources to achieve, and
>>         continued consumption of these resources to maintain to the
>>         degree achieved.  In other words, a pleasant way of saying an
>>         enormous, perpetual, drain on resources which precludes most
>>         all other possible uses of financial resources.
>>
>>         I have been suggesting for some time now that expending most
>>         all of our discretionary funds on ballot access petitioning
>>         may not be the best use of the financial resources entrusted
>>         to us by our members and donors.  For that, I have been
>>         unofficially dubbed the “nattering nabob of negativity” of
>>         the Libertarian Party.  However, things are looking up. 
>>         Thanks to efforts of the Chair and Executive Director, the
>>         2016 budget includes $45,000 for Affiliate Support, up 4,500%
>>         from where it was in 2014.  Our Affiliate Support Specialist
>>         contractor appears to have made more progress in just three
>>         months than the LNC has in the previous six years (since the
>>         formation of the Affiliate Support Committee).  I look
>>         forward to the time when the “core activities” other than the
>>         Ballot Access Petitioning activity are allotted equivalent
>>         amounts of the financial resources entrusted to us.  At that
>>         time, the primary question and the follow up questions will
>>         both, hopefully, be moot.
>>
>>         We have ballot access in 28 states; and ballot access is
>>         reasonable (e.g. ~1,000 signatures) in another 10 states. 
>>         The low hanging fruit in the ballot access arena has been
>>         picked. It’s time to start producing political success in the
>>         38 states where we have ballot access or can reasonable
>>         obtain such.
>>
>>         Norm
>>
>>         --
>>
>>         Norman T Olsen
>>
>>         Regional Representative, Region 1
>>
>>         Libertarian National Committee
>>
>>         7931 South Broadway, PMB 102
>>
>>         Littleton, CO  80122-2710
>>
>>         303-263-4995 <tel:303-263-4995>
>>
>>         *From:*Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>>         <mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>] *On Behalf Of *Kevin
>>         Ludlow
>>         *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:21 PM
>>         *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>         *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
>>
>>         Wes,
>>
>>         Thank you for this update.
>>
>>         I would like to make a request of the LNC body.  Is there a
>>         member that could, in a short paragraph or less, explain why
>>         we should be focusing so many efforts on Oklahoma? As the
>>         Region-7 rep I find myself in an interesting position with
>>         this issue. On the one hand I am biased to see Oklahoma get
>>         additional resources, but on the other hand I am a practical
>>         business person who sees numerous flaws with pouring money
>>         into this.
>>
>>         Do we want ballot access across the country?  Of course! 
>>         This doesn't even need to be discussed.  But at what cost are
>>         we willing to attain that goal?
>>
>>         What is the actual downside of us losing Oklahoma ballot
>>         access?  I don't fully understand the loss would affects
>>         others running in the state, but even if it entirely
>>         prevented their own candidacy, how much do we lose with
>>         that?  This isn't meant to be antagonistic, but rather
>>         something the LNC should be tasked with carefully analyzing. 
>>         There was a lot of conversation that it hurts our brand in
>>         Oklahoma (a similar argument was used in Oregon).  No doubt
>>         this is true, but in Oklahoma specifically, by how much does
>>         it hurt us?  Do we raise an exorbitant amount of money in OK
>>         each year that we might not see in 2016 if we cut our losses?
>>
>>         I will refer back to a point I've made before.  Would any of
>>         you personally spend tends of thousands of dollars of your
>>         own money on this cause?  I remain extremely frustrated we
>>         couldn't even get our own body to commit to $50 / month as
>>         top representatives of the Libertarian Party and yet here we
>>         are cavalierly about to discuss whether to spend $10s of
>>         thousands of additional dollars on a cause which by all
>>         accounts we simply may not succeed in.  I feel very strongly
>>         this is the kind of difficult decision the LNC **should**
>>         have to make and it strikes me that we haven't really
>>         analyzed the cost/benefits of it.  Rather we relying upon the
>>         notion of: "we believe in ourselves so let's pour more money
>>         into this." ...a la every government pep-talk ever.
>>
>>         I will also concede that I fully appreciate and understand
>>         the position the party (specifically the Chair) is in for
>>         having raised certain monies specifically tied to us making
>>         this effort.  I do get that.  But I'm merely wanting us to
>>         consider how much more useful that money could possibly be in
>>         other areas.  Are we not a political party? Could we not
>>         politick donors into understanding WHY the money they donated
>>         was ultimately moved to a different state cause?  Since
>>         everyone is a philosopher here, there is very basic
>>         Aristotelian logic at play here regarding donation
>>         distribution.  In the famed question, "There is a surplus of
>>         flutes, to whom do they go?", they go to the flutists as
>>         those are the only people who can use them.  My point being
>>         that there is simply no sense in us pouring money into a
>>         cause we cannot win when that money could be given to
>>         states/people who can actually improve the overall results of
>>         our Party - rather than MAYBE catch us up to the status quo.
>>
>>         So to conclude, I am in no way saying we SHOULD cut our
>>         losses.  But I would really like somebody to quantify for me
>>         specifically what we lose (objectively) if we don't chase
>>         this goal. Or for that matter if we chase it and fail.  I am
>>         asking that because I believe the "goal" right now is far too
>>         broad; of course we all want ballot access.  I want to know
>>         if what we would lose is tolerable to the body.  That
>>         question seems far more relevant in the decision process.
>>
>>         Please feel free to email/call/text me any time of day at
>>         512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968> with any questions / comments.
>>
>>         Thank you much for your time.
>>
>>         Kevin Ludlow
>>
>>         Region 7
>>         512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968>
>>
>>         BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
>>
>>         On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Wes Benedict
>>         <wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>          I went to Oklahoma for two reasons: first, to help with the
>>         petition drive, but second, to get a closer look so I could
>>         decide if I thought we should just shut it down. We are
>>         spending about $2,500 a week there, and we're about to double
>>         that rate, so if we are going to cut our losses and end it,
>>         the sooner the better.
>>
>>         My bottom line report to the LNC executive committee is that
>>         I'm confident we can ramp up our signature collection rate
>>         enough to finish the drive before the March 1 deadline, but
>>         we are going to have to exceed the $65,000 budget for
>>         Oklahoma by $15,000 to $25,000 to finish the drive.
>>
>>         I'm recommending we try to finish the drive, but it wouldn't
>>         be so unreasonable to end it now if that's what you decide to
>>         do. Things have gone worse than we had originally planned.
>>
>>         We initially hoped that we could do this drive for $2 per
>>         signature and that we could finish it by early fall. Recent
>>         petition drives in places like Arkansas have gone well, and
>>         with stories of petitioners fighting over turf and demanding
>>         the opportunity to work for us in some places, it seemed like
>>         we might actually be exceeding the market rate for signatures
>>         in some cases.
>>
>>         But things have been harder than expected in Oklahoma.  On
>>         October 27, we raised the rate in Oklahoma from $2 to $2.50
>>         per signature, and even at that higher rate, finding enough
>>         people to work has been a challenge.
>>
>>         Before we started the Oklahoma drive, stalwart libertarian
>>         petitioner Andy Jacobs warned us that petition drives for
>>         initiatives in other states in the fall would be competing
>>         with us for workers and would drive up our costs, so we
>>         needed to get it done over the summer. Unfortunately, we
>>         didn't start until the end of the summer.  And while Andy did
>>         good work for us in Oklahoma for several weeks, he, as well
>>         as other petitioners, have indeed left Oklahoma for the
>>         higher paying non-Libertarian Party Petition work in other
>>         states that he warned us about. Although Andy is out of
>>         Oklahoma now, he does continue to stay interested in our
>>         progress and has been generous with suggestions for
>>         improvement. I'm sure he'd be happy to share his thoughts on
>>         our Oklahoma effort with any of you directly if you reach out
>>         to him.
>>
>>         One suggestion from Andy is that we should pay more to entice
>>         petitioners back and possibly even pay $5 per signature for
>>         door to door petitioning. Our petitioners have had hard times
>>         finding good locations with lots of the kind of foot traffic
>>         that makes for productive petitioning. Door-to-door
>>         petitioning can give very high validity signatures, so the
>>         $5/signature rate for 100% validity is not so far off from
>>         $2.50 per signature for around 65% validity.
>>
>>         In hind sight, I wish we had started this drive earlier. But
>>         I don't think right now we need to offer a higher pay rate
>>         (not that we could afford it, anyway). Instead, we need to
>>         focus on recruiting more petitioners, and we are already
>>         seeing success from that.
>>
>>         Projections I've sent to Bill Redpath and Nick Sarwark show
>>         that with the new workers we've already recruited, we will
>>         likely finish the drive on time. But we also have several
>>         more petitioners saying they will probably be here soon to
>>         help, and if just a couple of those pan out, we could finish
>>         in January.
>>
>>         I've heard lots of complaints from petitioners that it's been
>>         very hard to find good locations in Oklahoma to collect
>>         signatures. Petitioners have told us the grocery stores won't
>>         let them petition, public places like universities and
>>         festival grounds have been hostile, and the Oklahoma Driver's
>>         licensing places are too numerous to have significant people
>>         at any single location.
>>
>>         My uncle lives in Oklahoma City. I visited him Saturday night
>>         briefly and was surprised when he told me he had seen
>>         petitioners lately at the grocery and post office and he
>>         assumed they were ours. I asked him exactly which locations
>>         because I wondered about the conflicting reports. He
>>         specified by name the Crest grocery, Buy For Less grocery,
>>         and post office near his home. I had hoped to find time to
>>         visit those stores myself to ask why they might be letting
>>         petitioners for other efforts work there but not libertarians
>>         (assuming that was the case).
>>
>>         I didn't find time for that, but LPOK vice chair Tina Kelly
>>         has since told me that even she had been personally told by
>>         those chains she couldn't petition there, only to find out
>>         later that one of the petitioners she recruited somehow did
>>         get permission at a location of both chains.
>>
>>         I think some of our stalwart petitioners like Andy are used
>>         to finding locations where they occasionally hit the jackpot
>>         and collect over 500 signatures on a single day. That makes
>>         up for the more common slow days. Petitioners who come from
>>         out of town usually have transportation and motel expenses
>>         they pay out of pocket. Locals don't have the travel overhead
>>         and we are getting a few locals working. They may be slower
>>         than someone like Andy, but they can go slower and still make
>>         the economics work. Locals can spend more time asking for
>>         permission at more places and can afford to get chased away
>>         from more locations.
>>
>>         I personally saw the entire batch of petition forms. That was
>>         reassuring. In fact I pulled an all-nighter Monday and
>>         scanned all 2,000 sheets in case we need help remotely with
>>         validation, and because while often hearing anecdotes of
>>         certain petitioners routinely getting better validity than
>>         others, I wanted the opportunity to see for myself.
>>
>>         LP vice chair Tina Kelly has been indispensable to this
>>         drive. Petitioners turn in signatures to her, she gives us
>>         the counts, we wire funds, she writes checks, and pays the
>>         petitioners. She also visits with the elections authorities
>>         to find out important rules and procedures for our petition
>>         drive. She has worked to get cooperation from a couple
>>         single-issue groups doing ballot initiatives. Although
>>         results from those cooperation efforts have been lower than
>>         hoped, we’ve gotten a couple thousand signatures from the
>>         cooperation.
>>
>>         Tina's son recently put the Oklahoma registered voter
>>         database online in a searchable format to assist with
>>         validity checking. That will be hugely helpful.
>>
>>         While Tina has done lots of work, it's hard for one person to
>>         do all that she does plus respond to all the complaints from
>>         current petitioners and inquiries from prospective
>>         petitioners, not to mention answering frequent questions
>>         about progress from Bill Redpath and me. We recently decided
>>         to have Paul Frankel help with some of the local management
>>         assistance. I had gone to Oklahoma with the expectation that
>>         I might recommend removing Paul to save money, but right now
>>         I think we should keep him at least for a month to make sure
>>         new petitioners have someone they can reach quickly any time
>>         of day. Later we can reevaluate the cost of having him there.
>>
>>          Tina invited me and the LPOK officers and activists to a
>>         nice restaurant Tuesday night. I asked who would be a
>>         candidate if we got ballot access. Out of about ten people,
>>         at least 3 indicated interest, including one who was against
>>         attempting this daunting petition drive originally (because
>>         it’s so much work), but would run if we made it.
>>
>>         I told the prospect who might be interested in US Senate I'd
>>         give $200 towards the $1,000 filing fee if he runs in 2016,
>>         and someone else quickly offered another $200. I think we’ll
>>         get several people to run for office in addition to having
>>         our candidate for President on the ballot if we get ballot
>>         access.
>>
>>         (My plane, where I'm writing most of this note, just landed
>>         in DC. Final thoughts below from the office.)
>>
>>         I’m not counting on legal help to make a difference in time
>>         for us. However, if our counsel or the Oklahoma ACLU is
>>         successful in time, of course that might make things easier.
>>
>>         I’m also mindful of keeping alive the dream for 50 state
>>         ballot access, and the negative impact giving up in Oklahoma
>>         now might have.
>>
>>         A Libertarian from Austin, Texas, Michael Chastain, donated
>>         $4,000 last week to help the Oklahoma petition drive. That’s
>>         in addition to the five thousand or so we raised online
>>         recently:
>>
>>         http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/serious-help-needed-for-oklahoma-petition-drive
>>
>>         I rushed out to Oklahoma Saturday partly so I could be back
>>         in the office Wednesday to meet Mr. Chastain in person (he
>>         was visiting the D.C. area and was interested in visiting the
>>         headquarters today--Wednesday).
>>
>>         I’ll have more good news about support from Mr. Chastain soon.
>>
>>         The LNC-EC is schedule to meet Monday 12/7/2015, to decide
>>         whether or not to continue the LPOK drive. I’m sending this
>>         info to all of you know in case you’d like more information
>>         before that meeting.
>>
>>         cc'ing Richard Winger.
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>>         Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Lnc-business mailing list
>>         Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>         http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     ========================================================
>>     Kevin Ludlow
>>     512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968>
>>     http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Lnc-business mailing list
>>     Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>     http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Lnc-business mailing list
>     Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>     http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ========================================================
> Kevin Ludlow
> 512-773-3968
> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151211/7e11881c/attachment.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list