[Lnc-business] Let's be realistic in setting priorities

[Daniel Wiener]

Alicia's spreadsheet is very helpful.  I can see how the "cost per thousand
of population" could be a useful metric for ranking ballot access efforts.
However, I think a more important metric for the next Presidential election
will be "dollars in the bank".  We are barely limping along financially in
2015, and so far I'm not seeing how that is going to drastically improve in
2016.

According to the spreadsheet, the cost to the LNC of achieving 50-state
ballot status will be $364,000.  And that's not counting Ohio, which would
add considerably to that amount if legal efforts fail.  What happens if the
money simply isn't there?  Are we just going to close our eyes to that
contingency, and keep spending until there's suddenly nothing left?

Three states -- Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma -- together account
for $201,500 of the $364,000.  Whereas the remaining $162,500 would be
sufficient for us to get our Presidential candidate on the other 47 states
(again leaving Ohio as an open question).  I would hate to give up those
three states, but I am also trying to be realistic.  When an individual or
an organization runs short of money and has to cut expenditures, it becomes
necessary to set priorities no matter how painful that may be.  Should
spending $201,500 we don't have on only three states be among our top
priorities?

It's good that specific dedicated contributions of $31,000 have been
identified for the Oklahoma drive which the LP won't otherwise receive.
Nonetheless, the upcoming email motion would increase the Ballot Access
line item by $65,000 which still leaves an extra $34,000 to be raised.
Right now I don't feel confident that we can do so without cannibalizing
other fundraising priorities.  I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

Dan Wiener



On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> For a few years, some of us have been trying to come up with some minimum
> conditions that would have to be met in order for the LNC to spend funds on
> ballot access.  Is the affiliate making a reasonable effort, or are they
> just expecting the LNC to do it all?  How much money is being requested
> relative to the size of the state?  Will this get us access for 2 years? 4
> years? Will it span a presidential cycle, or only an off-cycle?  Is
> retention likely?  Etc.  So far the LNC has declined to put in place any
> such standards, and I don't recall ever seeing the LNC vote down a ballot
> access funding request.
>
> Given our pitiful financial state, we may find ourselves so very close to
> 50-state access but just short of funds to get there even though we're
> starting from our best starting point ever (30-state access).
>
> We may have to make hard decisions for our limited funds over the next
> year.
>
> Attached is a spreadsheet I made for my own reference before the EC
> meeting earlier this week.  I used the data in Bill Redpath's most recent
> ballot access action report plus the 2010 census data to calculate the
> per-capita cost to the LNC of obtaining ballot access in the 20 states plus
> DC where we don't yet have it for 2016.
>
> I didn't use cost-per-electoral vote.  The electoral vote comparison gets
> a little skewed on the small states because all states have 2 senators
> regardless of population.  Instead I used the state's population base.
> Since history doesn't necessarily suggest our candidate will receive any of
> the electoral votes, it's more about how much exposure we will get by
> having our candidates on the ballot with a party label.  I suppose it would
> have been a little better to use registered voters, but population figures
> were more readily available at the time.
>
> The most expensive per-capita cost of the locales left on our to-do list
> is the District of Columbia at $24.93 per thousand population.  Second
> place goes to South Dakota at $24.56 per thousand, and the LNC has already
> budgeted for South Dakota this year (though it's on hold pending litigation
> about the filing deadline).  Oklahoma gets third place at $17.33 per
> thousand with the new lower requirements.
>
> Keep in mind that we just don't know what Ohio's story will be, with all
> the legal limbo there.  It could end up being very expensive.
>
> We need to lean heavily on affiliates to carry their fair share of the
> weight.  Several affiliates with up to 5,000 signatures required are going
> to be expected to do it all themselves.  Then there's New Hampshire, where
> they need 3,000 signatures, but Bill's report indicates the affiliate isn't
> likely to do any of it themselves, and the cost per signature will likely
> be a very high $5, which puts them in 4th place on the most expensive list.
>
> -Alicia
>
>
-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150619/0b2eba8f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2016 Ballot Access Cost Per Capita.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 18432 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150619/0b2eba8f/attachment-0001.xls>