[Lnc-business] Presidential candidates

[Daniel Wiener]

Our current criteria for listing people seeking the LP Presidential
nomination are a mixture of constitutional requirements and indications of
seriousness.  As Nick described them, they are:

   1. Be constitutionally eligible for the office of President
   2. Be a sustaining member of the Libertarian Party
   3. Have a campaign website
   4. Have filed an FEC Form 2 indicating that he/she is seeking the
   Libertarian Party nomination, and
   5. Not be seeking the nomination of any other political party.


Our Bylaws require criteria #1 and #2 in order to receive the LP
nomination.  Criteria #3 and #5 are indications of seriousness.  But what
about #4?  It is not a requirement of the U.S. Constitution, and is not
even required by statute if contributions total less than $5,000.  A person
could theoretically run for President and legally never file with the FEC.
But as a practical matter, a candidate's failure to file would either mean
a woefully underfunded campaign with no chance of accomplishing anything,
or else a violation of the law which would likely get the candidate
indicted.  Seeking a soapbox to highlight opposition to the FEC may be a
worthy effort, but an indicted (and possibly convicted) candidate is not
going to accomplish the Libertarian Party's overall goals.  However much we
may despise the FEC, the LP nonetheless obeys the law and files our own
reports with it.  Criterion #4 is another indication of seriousness, and
not an unreasonable one.

*The Libertarian Party is proposing analogous criteria in our Fair Debates
lawsuit*.  We are saying that "The proposed remedy is that the debates
include all candidates who are legally qualified to serve and whose names
appear on enough states’ ballots to potentially secure a majority in the
Electoral College."  The first portion is a Constitutional requirement, but
"potentially secure a majority in the Electoral College" is actually an
indication of seriousness.  The degree of difficulty in obtaining ballot
status for Presidential candidates varies wildly from one state to the
next, so we are effectively tying this requirement to the statutes of
numerous states (some of which we are challenging in court).  So here we
are saying that qualifying for inclusion in the debates should depend on
satisfying enough state ballot laws.  How is that fundamentally different
than saying a candidate seeking the LP Presidential nomination must satisfy
the FEC laws?

(I should also note that it is technically possible for a candidate who is
not on "enough states’ ballots to potentially secure a majority in the
Electoral College" to still get elected President.  Some Electoral College
delegates who were elected on the slates of other candidates could switch
their votes to him.  Or if no candidate received a majority in the
Electoral College, it would be thrown into the House of Representatives
which might compromise on him.)

I think that it is useful for a variety of reasons for the LP to publish a
list of serious candidates who are seeking our Presidential nomination.
But just as in our Fair Debates lawsuit, there still must be some
standards.  The five criteria listed are quite minimal.  I'd prefer to add
additional requirements of raising a significant amount of money and having
signed endorsements from a reasonable number of LP members.  I certainly
don't want to water down the criteria any further.

So I come down on the side of wanting *all* of the criteria to be
objectively enforced.

Dan Wiener


On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> For the information of the LNC members, the criteria to be listed on
> the LP.org list of 2016 Presidential candidates that I've directed
> staff to apply are that a candidate must:
> 1) Be constitutionally eligible for the office of President
> 2) Be a sustaining member of the Libertarian Party
> 3) Have a campaign website
> 4) Have filed an FEC Form 2 indicating that he/she is seeking the
> Libertarian Party nomination, and
> 5) Not be seeking the nomination of any other political party.
>
> Darryl Perry is listed as an exception that I made because he's
> running an active campaign, attending state conventions to campaign
> among prospective delegates, and refusing to file as a protest against
> an agency that our party believes should not even exist.  This is an
> exception to criterion 4 and at some level subjective, but I wanted it
> to be clear to the LNC that I made that judgment call, not staff.
>
> To address the specific issue of Mr. Petersen, he has indicated that
> he plans to file FEC Form 2 indicating that he is seeking the
> Libertarian Party nomination and has not indicated that his present
> non-filing is any kind of protest, rather than just a delay in doing
> the filing.
>
> To address the legal ramifications, should the delegates decide to
> nominate Mr. Perry, any penalties for non-compliance would come down
> on Mr. Perry and/or his campaign staff.  As long as the LNC continues
> to comply with its FEC compliance requirements, any misbehavior on the
> part of a particular candidate, even if the nominee, still falls on
> the candidate.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> Nick
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151001/f9d84d6b/attachment-0002.html>