[Lnc-business] Oklahoma petition drive

[Sean O'Toole]

Dan:
The way I read the motion, any outflow will need to be matched by 
earmarked inflow. I realize that this may effect overall fundraising but 
targeted fundraising such as what will be needed to fulfill the outflow 
specified in the motion has been, in my experience in Missouri, well 
received by donors.

Sean

Sean O'Toole
sean at kingfieldcapital.com
(816) 739-2737

    “It is the job of economists to point out trade-offs; it is the 
job of politicians and planners to deny that trade-offs exist.”
         -William Easterly, 2006
On 19 Jun 2015, at 10:48, Daniel Wiener wrote:

> I'm concerned about the proposed Oklahoma petition drive and how it 
> fits
> into our overall efforts for ballot access next year.  The LNC's 
> finances
> are very fragile right now, and we will be facing the usual huge 
> expenses
> in 2016 to get our Presidential candidate on the ballot in a number of
> different states.  We're not starting out with a surplus to draw on, 
> as we
> did in 2012.  So it will be a big challenge.
>
> While I'd love to include Oklahoma and be successful in all fifty 
> states,
> I'm also trying to be realistic.  $65,000 for Oklahoma is a lot of 
> money.
> The way this motion is phrased, we'd have to get $60,000 in 
> contributions
> dedicated specifically to Oklahoma before proceeding, which is all 
> well and
> good.  But that seems likely to cannibalize contributions for our 
> other
> ballot access efforts.
>
> Raising money is not a zero-sum game, and different donors may be 
> willing
> to contribute to different projects.  I can see how "ballot access" 
> will
> appeal to some people who aren't interested in the building fund or 
> general
> LNC operations or whatever.  But will "ballot access" type donors be
> interested in Oklahoma in contrast to other states?  If there's only a
> limited amount of money we can raise for all our ballot access efforts 
> next
> year, will the $65,000 for Oklahoma drained from that pool prevent us 
> from
> getting on several other states?
>
> So before I'm willing to vote Yes on this motion, I'll need to hear 
> some
> convincing arguments that it won't damage our other ballot access
> requirements.
>
> Dan Wiener
>
> -- 
> *"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)
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org