[Lnc-business] Agenda Item -- Define in Advance the Agreement between the Party and the Presidential Campaign

[Daniel Wiener]

I'd suggest half an hour for this agenda item.  That should give us enough
time to briefly discuss what has gone wrong in the past, what essential
provisions need to be dealt with in the 2016 agreement, and what the LNC is
(and isn't) prepared to do in support of the 2016 Presidential candidate.
Then we can set a target date for preparation of a draft agreement.  The
LNC can subsequently approve a draft agreement either by email ballot or
via an electronic or in-person meeting.

Dan Wiener


On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> As a bylaws amendment, this proposal is perennial and never seems to go
> anywhere.  The delegates don't seem to approve of having their hands bound
> as to who they may nominate.
>
> As a strategic matter, a political party with likely 50-state ballot
> access ought to float an agreement it would like to see executed by any
> nominee and publicize which potential nominees are and are not willing to
> sign it.  The delegates would be able to do with that information as they
> please.
>
> As a committee, we have more leverage in these negotiations than we've
> used in the past and I would like to use it this time around.
>
> How long would you like on the agenda?
>
> -Nick
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to add an item to the LNC meeting agenda on drafting in advance
>> an agreement between the Party and the 2016 Presidential candidate.  The
>> Bylaws Committee is considering a proposed amendment which would require
>> persons seeking the LP Presidential nomination to sign such an agreement
>> ahead of time.  This would avoid the problems and delays we've had in the
>> past.  But it means that the LNC needs to come up with a draft document
>> within the next several months (preferably at least six months before the
>> 2016 convention) so as to negotiate the terms with potential candidates and
>> work out the kinks.
>>
>> Of course a Bylaws Amendment, if passed, would only officially take
>> effect for 2020 and thereafter.  But it is an inherently good idea, and
>> should be at least unofficially implemented for 2016 by the LNC.  This
>> would also demonstrate to the convention delegates that it is both feasible
>> and valuable.  It's something which our new legal counsel should expect to
>> take on as one of his early assignments.
>>
>> I'm forwarding copies of several past agreements which Dan Karlan has
>> provided.
>>
>> Dan Wiener
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Dan Karlan <dankarlan at earthlink.net>
>> Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:23 AM
>> Subject: RE: Bylaws Proposal -- Define in Advance the Agreement between
>> the Party and the Presidential Campaign
>>
>>  Attached are several documents relevant to the discussion of advance
>> agreement with the nominee.
>>
>>  Dan Karlan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
*"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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150707/f2ea75b3/attachment-0002.html>