[Lnc-business] Oklahoma petition drive

[Brett Bittner]

All,

I believe one of our most important duties as the committee that guides the
national party is to ensure ballot access for our Presidential nominee
every four years. This motion concerns me, as we would amend the budget to
spend more than double its previous size for ballot access in a single
state, a state that has historically been VERY difficult to gain access in.
I don't recall in our Alexandria meeting last year any discussion of "50
state ballot access" for our Presidential nominee in our goal-setting
discussion.

I believe that we should be on the ballot in as many states as possible,
however spending such a large sum on a single state (that has only 7
electoral votes) seems a bit drastic. Shouldn't we focus on getting as many
of the easier (and less expensive) states secured before taking on such a
large responsibility? Also, what skin does Oklahoma have in the game? Are
they raising the $5000 we aren't? Are they providing some sort of support?
Or is this a situation where the state affiliate has their hand out without
a plan for helping their own activity?

One of the risks of project-based fundraising is that you are stuck with
the funds going to the activity outlined. Otherwise, we may have to return
funds to donors or break the law by using the funds elsewhere. If we raise
$59k, are we prepared to return $59k to donors and telling them that we
couldn't fund their project due to a lack of other support?

I intend to cast a "no" vote, should Dr. Feldman not vote for the reasons
outlined above.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Alternate
Libertarian National Committee

brett at brettbittner.com
404.492.6524

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty
than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Sean O'Toole <sean at kingfieldcapital.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150619/18d6d55a/attachment-0002.html>