[Lnc-business] Oklahoma petition drive

[Brett Bittner]

Dr. Lieberman,

While I would like to see New York maintain the access we fund via
National, yet they are not the issue we are faced with currently.

If you would like to bring New York's access into the discussion, I would
be more likely to support the motion for Oklahoma at 1/4th the cost of NY.
New York has nearly 4 times the number of electoral votes (27) as Oklahoma.
Behind California and Texas, they stand third in terms of electoral votes.

Why not think critically and with electoral ramifications in mind about
ballot access? Should we not consider spending donor funds as carefully as
our own?

Brett Bittner

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.
On Jun 19, 2015 12:34 PM, "Scott L." <scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:

>     Mr. Bittner:
>
>
>
> The LNC has voted to fund ballot access drives in New York every 2 years
> for many decades, even though the LPNY has never been able to retain ballot
> access after their quadrennial off-year elections.
>
>
>
> All they need is about 1.2% of the vote for Governor, but they have never
> achieved that threshold.  The layout of the NY ballot makes getting votes a
> little more difficult than in other states, but since the Green Party has
> retained ballot status at least twice in NY without cross-endorsing the
> Democrat, retaining ballot status in NY can be done.
>
>
>
> If the people on this board think it is OK to keep dumping money into NY
> every two years for ballot access, then they should also be in favor of
> funding the 2015 ballot drive in Oklahoma.
>
>
>
> If we don’t achieve 50 state ballot status for the 2016 Presidential
> Nominee, then it doesn’t really matter if it is 48 or 46 or 44 states.  So,
> if we sacrifice Oklahoma, then we might as well sacrifice another 6 or 7
> states and save a lot more money and/or use that money for expenses like
>
> paying down the mortgage or for fundraising expenses.
>
>
>
>   Scott Lieberman
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
>
>
>
> 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 <%28816%29%20739-2737>
>
>
>
> GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
>
> :
>
>  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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/abb22251/attachment-0002.html>