[Lnc-business] Presidential candidates

Thu Oct 1 05:33:19 EDT 2015

I agree with Mr. Katz' assessment of this situation.  When one person is
given preferential treatment by making an exception to the established
criteria, we're no longer treating the candidates equally.

This subject was a can of worms leading up to the 2012 presidential
convention as well.  I just reviewed some old emails to refresh my memory
on the context of what happened at the time.  Some initial criteria were
established, and then the criteria started changing to try to accommodate
this person or that person who was excluded.  Guess what one of the issues
was...Jim Burns complained about the requirement to have filed with the
FEC, so there was talk of eliminating that criteria to accommodate him.  It
became such a distraction from what the board should be doing that I
ultimately made (and the LNC adopted) a motion in February 2012 that:

"The LNC hereby directs Staff to remove from the Party's website the
listing of individuals seeking the Party's nomination for President or Vice
President."

We didn't put that in the policy manual, but an argument could be made
about whether that's still a directive that is in force until such time as
the LNC says otherwise.

The world did not implode because we no longer listed presidential
candidates on the website.  I prefer that we not do it at all and just
leave it to delegates to decide who is serious and who isn't, but if we're
going to do it, the LNC should not appear to be giving special treatment to
anyone.

As a side note, just think about the possible legal ramifications if our
convention were to nominate a candidate who refused to file with the FEC.
If it were even appropriate for us to make exceptions to accommodate
certain candidates, is that the side effect we want to be inviting for the
Party?  I think all of us object to FEC requirements in general, but the
LNC doesn't tell staff to stop filing monthly reports because of the legal
and financial ramifications the organization would suffer.

I'm potentially willing to cosponsor some sort of motion to address this
matter, but I'd like to hear feedback from other LNC members about what
they believe is appropriate.

-Alicia

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Joshua Katz <joshua.katz at lp.org> wrote:

> Colleagues,
>
> I have been thinking about this for some time, and have decided to present
> my concern to the LNC for your input.  Here is a relevant Policy Manual
> provision:
>
> Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for
> any candidate for
> public office prior to the nomination unless:
> • such information or services are available and announced on an equal
> basis to all
> Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that nomination,
> • such information or services are generally available and announced to
> all party
> members, or
> • the service or candidate has been approved by the state chair.
>
> This leaves open to some interpretation (some would say it leaves a
> penumbra) a few questions, such as what "declared" means in provision 1.
> The easiest way to comply with this provision would be to simply not
> maintain a list of Presidential candidates.  However, this may not be
> practical, since HQ will be asked who our candidates are, and we might as
> well have a list.  I would not be opposed to eliminating the list, but I'm
> also not necessarily opposed to having one.  Nor is it practical to list
> everyone who says they want our nomination, particularly if we wish to
> appear credible.  A look at the 1175 FEC Form 2 Filers will confirm that no
> party can list all of its "declared candidates" nor take all, or most,
> seriously.
>
> So, I agree with having objective criteria for being listed as a
> candidate, if we are to have a list.  Here are the 2012 criteria:
>
> Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian
> Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively
> Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party
> Campaign website is current with contact information
>
> Nothing binds us to observe the past requirements, of course, and I tend
> to think, unless the LNC acts, the definition of the criteria belong to the
> Chair or staff.  I also don't think the LNC should micromanage those
> criteria; that is, while I would be fine with the LNC saying not to list
> candidates, I'd be much less enthusiastic about the LNC trying to write
> criteria.  Here is a statement of the current criteria:
>
> The Libertarian Party recognizes 2016 Presidential candidates who have
> campaign websites, are dues-paying members of the LP, have met all U.S.
> Constitutional requirements to serve in office as president, and are not
> running for the nomination of any other political party. They have filed
> with the FEC, with the exception of Darryl Perry, who has chosen not to
> file as a protest against the FEC, claiming it lacks constitutional
> authority.
>
> Now, Darryl Perry is listed, as noted above.  Not listed is Austin
> Petersen, who meets all criteria, as far as I know, other than filing FEC
> Form 2.  I believe that such a loose criteria as one that can be
> paraphrased as "either filed Form 2, or doesn't want to" is, at least
> arguably, a violation of our Policy Manual requirement to make information
> or services available equally to all declared candidates.  This is, in my
> opinion, not an objective criterion.  Petersen hasn't filed the form - as
> far as I know, he also hasn't triggered any requirement to do so, and
> neither has Perry (or, likely, anyone else.)  He is certainly as much a
> declared candidate as anyone else.  So hasn't he "chosen not to" file it,
> at least at the moment, making him as qualified for listing as is Perry?
> Is there a definition of "chosen not to" that excludes, well, anyone?
>
> In summary, I believe we can meet our Policy Manual requirement by having
> objective criteria and sticking to them (equally available to all can
> reasonably be seen as "equally available to all who have done certain
> things.)  I believe that, at the moment, either non-objective criteria are
> being applied, or they are being applied selectively, and either option is,
> in my opinion, a Policy Manual violation.
>
> I cannot make motions, so I am simply bringing this to the LNC's
> attention.  It is not my intent to attack any candidate, or any decision,
> but rather to ensure that our rules are followed.
>
> Thank you for your time and consideration,
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
> Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate
> Libertarian National Committee
>
> Elected Libertarian
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151001/005ad187/attachment-0002.html>