[Lnc-business] Oklahoma petition drive

[Sam Goldstein]

Can we spare some money for grammar and writing lessons for the LPOK?

Sam

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 4:00 PM, <doug at vikingmetals.com> wrote:

> I contacted the Ok people and ask them to sell me...this is what I got
> back..many times I worry about throwing our money away...and I always worry
> about how much we spend for ballot access for one state...considering many
> great states get very little help...but when a donor offers up 30 grand it
> is hard to turn down...
> Doug Craig votes yes
>
>
>
> The leadership of the OKLP is devoted to the idea that WE HAVE THE ANSWERS
> THAT OKLAHOMA AND THE WORLD NEEDS. THIS IS THE YEAR WE STOP BEING IGNORED.
> Until this very real chance at ballot access came along, we were embracing
> wholeheartedly the idea that we were going to stop begging our political
> enemies for the chance to lick their boots. The party had lost any forward
> moving energy and accepted the label of irrelevance. It was basically
> inactive, unseen and boiled down to a rotating club consisting of half a
> dozen people meeting in coffee shops to argue semantics. With our new found
> enthusiasm, we have been showing up and making a real difference in the
> arena of issues. We began marching in parades with the edgy theme "Let My
> People Go!" highlighting punitive ballot access laws and shaming the power
> hoarding statism of the two dominant parties. This weekend our float with
> the theme, "Standing For Marriage Equality Since 1971" will be seen by
> 32,000 people during the Pride Parade. We want this audience to know that
> we've been on the right side of history all along when it comes to equality
> under the law....and hopefully they will wonder what else we might be right
> about. We held a WTF? Day at the capitol bringing together 10 top OK
> activists from widely ranging and diverse organizations. During this event
> we highlighted 12 of the most egregious anti-liberty laws being proposed at
> that time. Our audience and the 10 of them heard the message of liberty in
> a way that brought attention to the theme of commonality when it comes to
> how the state becomes and remains tyrannical. We stood for liberty for all
> people when we helped facilitate a Muslim event at the capitol in stark
> contrast to other groups in our state who try and use the name Liberty in
> their promotions. We've co-sponsored protests of OK Attorney General Scott
> Pruitt's lawsuit against Colorado and will be backing a new legislative
> campaign by Kyle Loveless to stop asset forfeiture in our state. We will be
> working on helping the medical marijuana initiative petition when it
> launches in August. We want our name to come to mind every time someone
> says "End the Drug War." In short, ballot access or no, we are committed to
> (stealing a phrase here) OCCUPYING OUR PARTY. Oklahoma is heavily red when
> it comes to politics..but there is unrest and we are on the verge of real
> change. The OKLP will be at the forefront of that change. Enter the chance
> at ballot access. At first I have to be honest and say I was against taking
> the time, energy and limited resources away from the very successful things
> we were already doing and getting right back onto the hamster wheel of
> trying to win at a rigged game. Having a voice has felt good this past
> year. BUT, I've come around. I don't do things halfway. When I say I've
> come around.... I mean 100%. I see the vision of how this campaign will be
> different than those in the past. I see how we can make the powers that be
> sorry that they cracked open the polling booth door because we are gonna
> kick it down! We are going to be in their face every day promoting our
> party, our ideals and the message that will bring every disengaged and
> disenfranchised voter in Oklahoma together under the simple direct and
> personal message that "WE WANNA VOTE TOO!" AND we don't wanna vote for the
> status quo or the lessor of two evils. We wanna vote for representatives
> that ....represent us. We have the answers to the tough questions and our
> state and the world needs to hear them. To that end we have partnered with
> the OK Green Party as far as having volunteers carry both party's
> petitions. This is not only going to allow us to gather more unpaid
> signatures, but is going to allow us to reach segments of the population
> here that has historically been somewhat hostile to us. The activities I
> touched on above and the coalition for voter choice has this group already
> looking at us with new eyes. We aren't two-headed monsters who want to burn
> down their schools and tear up the roads. These people are libertarian
> minded when they let down their guards. I'm assuming that you've read the
> e-mail I sent outlining our basic goals for a petitioning campaign? If not,
> I can send it to you. Since I wrote that, those ideas have bloomed. Last
> night at an informal gathering the leadership of the OKLP brainstormed and
> came up with some very creative and very exciting ways to entice candidates
> to run for office as Libertarians and to support them once they've come on
> board. We will be cementing that plan and taking action at our next formal
> meeting. We are short on money here...but we have an abundance of
> creativity, intelligence, talent and passion. I've hastily written this and
> hopefully it will give you a taste of our drive and determination when it
> comes to claiming liberty for ourselves and our children. It's a lot of
> money we're talking about. If it were mine or mine to decide....I'd want to
> know that I was giving it to a group who will do their best to make the
> most of it. One who understands the responsibility that taking it brings.
> Not only the responsibility of living up to the faith of donors, but the
> knowledge that the act of taking it for themselves means someone else won't
> get it. One who is on the leadership edge of inevitable societal change.
> One to which a monetary push would make a very meaningful difference in the
> chances and the timing of success. I think that's the OKLP. Tina
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Oklahoma petition drive
> From: Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, June 19, 2015 11:35 am
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>
> One thing that seems to be missing in some of this discussion is
> leverage.  If we get donors to devote $30,000 to Oklahoma, another donor
> will fund the other $30k.  That's not an apples to apples comparison -
> money spent in Oklahoma is leveraged twice.  I see no reason to cloud the
> Oklahoma discussion by talking about what we do to fund other states,
> though - particularly states that contribute far more national members, by
> virtue of both size and of hard work to encourage state members to join
> national, such as NY.  I say let's look at Oklahoma on its merits, and
> simply ask if it is worth the money or not, keeping in mind that it is a
> leveraged investment.
>
> Furthermore, the LNC spent some money lobbying for better ballot access in
> Oklahoma, and succeeded.  To me, it is part of 'finishing what you start'
> to contribute to actually taking advantage of the better laws we obtained.
> Failing to use the new laws risks repeal, and at the very least makes us
> appear somewhat foolish and could threaten future lobbying success.  I say
> that not only because of the impression it would make on legislators, but
> because it might be hard to, say, encourage lobbyists to work for us below
> market if we don't follow through.
>
> Finally, I think consideration of the sheer number of electoral votes is
> somewhat premature.  Number of electoral votes would likely mean more if
> you expect your candidate to have some chance of gaining those votes.
> Since that's not a very likely outcome, it seems to me we need a more
> comprehensive metric than number of electoral votes.  Soft factors, as Dr.
> Feldman mentions, may indeed matter more in the short-run.
>
> I personally agree with Dr. Lieberman, of course, about the efficacy of
> running a Presidential candidate.  I still say Oklahoma ballot access is
> worth fighting for.
>
> A note on CT:  Since CT was mentioned, Presidential elector doesn't carry
> any more special ballot access than any other statewide office.  Governor
> is the special one here, at 20%.  If we get 1% for President (instead of
> .99% as we did last time) we'd get Presidential ballot access 4 years
> later, but nothing else.  We need to maintain ballot access in at least one
> statewide race, and yes, President would carry that longer, but in 2016, I
> expect a much better chance of retaining Senate than President.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:33 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
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e35be37f/attachment-0002.html>