[Lnc-business] Oklahoma petition drive

Sat Jun 20 01:08:08 EDT 2015

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

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Brett Bittner <brett at brettbittner.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150619/53bbe104/attachment-0002.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/20150619/53bbe104/attachment-0002.xls>