[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit

[Scott L.]

Mr. Chair:

 

I made your question red below.


The answer is simple.

 

Keep the money in the "reserve fund", so we have enough money to take care
of the inevitable problems that will occur with other state's ballot drives
in 2016.


   Scott Lieberman

 

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGGGGGGGG

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
Nicholas Sarwark
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 1:58 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit

 

The hardest state to get ballot access in the country became less hard

after decades of lobbying the legislature to reduce the signature

requirements.  Immediately after that, the pre-eminent ballot access

guru and Libertarian activist, Richard Winger pledged $30K of his

money for the specific project of getting on the ballot in Oklahoma

for the first time since 2000.  We raised another $35K in matching

funds for this specific project for a total budget already raised of

$65K.  There are only two LP ballot access drives going on in this

calendar year, Oklahoma and South Dakota.  Current projections are

that we can successfully finish the drive with an increase in the

budget of between $15-30K above what has already been raised and

earmarked for the project.  The funds already raised are not fungible

and cannot be spent on other ballot access projects, nor is there

another ballot access project going this year.

 

Oklahoma moved from functionally impossible to difficult.  The

situation on the ground has made difficult into very difficult.  But

if Oklahoma is completed successfully, we are on track and on budget

to have 50 state ballot access for the first time since 2000.  If we

abandon the Oklahoma drive we are guaranteed not to and will not have

another chance until 2020.  We already have commitments of $65K from

our donors to get this done, we have new commitments coming in (like

from Mr. Chastain) of thousands more to make sure it gets done, and I

am confident that if we commit to finishing the drive, we will be able

to raise the funds to get it done.

 

There is a corollary question.  If you call off the drive now and save

the unspent money (after any refunds to donors who ask for them), what

do you propose to use it on instead?

 

-Nick

 

 

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

 

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wes,

> 

> Thank you for this update.

> 

> I would like to make a request of the LNC body.  Is there a member that

> could, in a short paragraph or less, explain why we should be focusing so

> many efforts on Oklahoma?  As the Region-7 rep I find myself in an

> interesting position with this issue.  On the one hand I am biased to see

> Oklahoma get additional resources, but on the other hand I am a practical

> business person who sees numerous flaws with pouring money into this.

> 

> Do we want ballot access across the country?  Of course!  This doesn't
even

> need to be discussed.  But at what cost are we willing to attain that
goal?

> 

> What is the actual downside of us losing Oklahoma ballot access?  I don't

> fully understand the loss would affects others running in the state, but

> even if it entirely prevented their own candidacy, how much do we lose
with

> that?  This isn't meant to be antagonistic, but rather something the LNC

> should be tasked with carefully analyzing.  There was a lot of
conversation

> that it hurts our brand in Oklahoma (a similar argument was used in
Oregon).

> No doubt this is true, but in Oklahoma specifically, by how much does it

> hurt us?  Do we raise an exorbitant amount of money in OK each year that
we

> might not see in 2016 if we cut our losses?

> 

> I will refer back to a point I've made before.  Would any of you
personally

> spend tends of thousands of dollars of your own money on this cause?  I

> remain extremely frustrated we couldn't even get our own body to commit to

> $50 / month as top representatives of the Libertarian Party and yet here
we

> are cavalierly about to discuss whether to spend $10s of thousands of

> additional dollars on a cause which by all accounts we simply may not

> succeed in.  I feel very strongly this is the kind of difficult decision
the

> LNC **should** have to make and it strikes me that we haven't really

> analyzed the cost/benefits of it.  Rather we relying upon the notion of:
"we

> believe in ourselves so let's pour more money into this."  ...a la every

> government pep-talk ever.

> 

> I will also concede that I fully appreciate and understand the position
the

> party (specifically the Chair) is in for having raised certain monies

> specifically tied to us making this effort.  I do get that.  But I'm
merely

> wanting us to consider how much more useful that money could possibly be
in

> other areas.  Are we not a political party?  Could we not politick donors

> into understanding WHY the money they donated was ultimately moved to a

> different state cause?  Since everyone is a philosopher here, there is
very

> basic Aristotelian logic at play here regarding donation distribution.  In

> the famed question, "There is a surplus of flutes, to whom do they go?",

> they go to the flutists as those are the only people who can use them.  My

> point being that there is simply no sense in us pouring money into a cause

> we cannot win when that money could be given to states/people who can

> actually improve the overall results of our Party - rather than MAYBE
catch

> us up to the status quo.

> 

> So to conclude, I am in no way saying we SHOULD cut our losses.  But I
would

> really like somebody to quantify for me specifically what we lose

> (objectively) if we don't chase this goal.  Or for that matter if we chase

> it and fail.  I am asking that because I believe the "goal" right now is
far

> too broad; of course we all want ballot access.  I want to know if what we

> would lose is tolerable to the body.  That question seems far more
relevant

> in the decision process.

> 

> Please feel free to email/call/text me any time of day at 512-773-3968
with

> any questions / comments.

> 

> Thank you much for your time.

> Kevin Ludlow

> Region 7

> 512-773-3968

 

 

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

>> 

>>  I went to Oklahoma for two reasons: first, to help with the petition

>> drive, but second, to get a closer look so I could decide if I thought we

>> should just shut it down. We are spending about $2,500 a week there, and

>> we're about to double that rate, so if we are going to cut our losses and

>> end it, the sooner the better.

>> 

>> My bottom line report to the LNC executive committee is that I'm
confident

>> we can ramp up our signature collection rate enough to finish the drive

>> before the March 1 deadline, but we are going to have to exceed the
$65,000

>> budget for Oklahoma by $15,000 to $25,000 to finish the drive.

>> 

>> I'm recommending we try to finish the drive, but it wouldn't be so

>> unreasonable to end it now if that's what you decide to do. Things have
gone

>> worse than we had originally planned.

>> 

>> We initially hoped that we could do this drive for $2 per signature and

>> that we could finish it by early fall. Recent petition drives in places
like

>> Arkansas have gone well, and with stories of petitioners fighting over
turf

>> and demanding the opportunity to work for us in some places, it seemed
like

>> we might actually be exceeding the market rate for signatures in some
cases.

>> 

>> But things have been harder than expected in Oklahoma.  On October 27, we

>> raised the rate in Oklahoma from $2 to $2.50 per signature, and even at
that

>> higher rate, finding enough people to work has been a challenge.

>> 

>> Before we started the Oklahoma drive, stalwart libertarian petitioner
Andy

>> Jacobs warned us that petition drives for initiatives in other states in
the

>> fall would be competing with us for workers and would drive up our costs,
so

>> we needed to get it done over the summer. Unfortunately, we didn't start

>> until the end of the summer.  And while Andy did good work for us in

>> Oklahoma for several weeks, he, as well as other petitioners, have indeed

>> left Oklahoma for the higher paying non-Libertarian Party Petition work
in

>> other states that he warned us about. Although Andy is out of Oklahoma
now,

>> he does continue to stay interested in our progress and has been generous

>> with suggestions for improvement. I'm sure he'd be happy to share his

>> thoughts on our Oklahoma effort with any of you directly if you reach out
to

>> him.

>> 

>> One suggestion from Andy is that we should pay more to entice petitioners

>> back and possibly even pay $5 per signature for door to door petitioning.

>> Our petitioners have had hard times finding good locations with lots of
the

>> kind of foot traffic that makes for productive petitioning. Door-to-door

>> petitioning can give very high validity signatures, so the $5/signature
rate

>> for 100% validity is not so far off from $2.50 per signature for around
65%

>> validity.

>> 

>> In hind sight, I wish we had started this drive earlier. But I don't
think

>> right now we need to offer a higher pay rate (not that we could afford
it,

>> anyway). Instead, we need to focus on recruiting more petitioners, and we

>> are already seeing success from that.

>> 

>> Projections I've sent to Bill Redpath and Nick Sarwark show that with the

>> new workers we've already recruited, we will likely finish the drive on

>> time. But we also have several more petitioners saying they will probably
be

>> here soon to help, and if just a couple of those pan out, we could finish
in

>> January.

>> 

>> I've heard lots of complaints from petitioners that it's been very hard
to

>> find good locations in Oklahoma to collect signatures. Petitioners have
told

>> us the grocery stores won't let them petition, public places like

>> universities and festival grounds have been hostile, and the Oklahoma

>> Driver's licensing places are too numerous to have significant people at
any

>> single location.

>> 

>> My uncle lives in Oklahoma City. I visited him Saturday night briefly and

>> was surprised when he told me he had seen petitioners lately at the
grocery

>> and post office and he assumed they were ours. I asked him exactly which

>> locations because I wondered about the conflicting reports. He specified
by

>> name the Crest grocery, Buy For Less grocery, and post office near his
home.

>> I had hoped to find time to visit those stores myself to ask why they
might

>> be letting petitioners for other efforts work there but not libertarians

>> (assuming that was the case).

>> 

>> I didn't find time for that, but LPOK vice chair Tina Kelly has since
told

>> me that even she had been personally told by those chains she couldn't

>> petition there, only to find out later that one of the petitioners she

>> recruited somehow did get permission at a location of both chains.

>> 

>> I think some of our stalwart petitioners like Andy are used to finding

>> locations where they occasionally hit the jackpot and collect over 500

>> signatures on a single day. That makes up for the more common slow days.

>> Petitioners who come from out of town usually have transportation and
motel

>> expenses they pay out of pocket. Locals don't have the travel overhead
and

>> we are getting a few locals working. They may be slower than someone like

>> Andy, but they can go slower and still make the economics work. Locals
can

>> spend more time asking for permission at more places and can afford to
get

>> chased away from more locations.

>> 

>> I personally saw the entire batch of petition forms. That was reassuring.

>> In fact I pulled an all-nighter Monday and scanned all 2,000 sheets in
case

>> we need help remotely with validation, and because while often hearing

>> anecdotes of certain petitioners routinely getting better validity than

>> others, I wanted the opportunity to see for myself.

>> 

>> LP vice chair Tina Kelly has been indispensable to this drive.
Petitioners

>> turn in signatures to her, she gives us the counts, we wire funds, she

>> writes checks, and pays the petitioners. She also visits with the
elections

>> authorities to find out important rules and procedures for our petition

>> drive. She has worked to get cooperation from a couple single-issue
groups

>> doing ballot initiatives. Although results from those cooperation efforts

>> have been lower than hoped, we've gotten a couple thousand signatures
from

>> the cooperation.

>> 

>> Tina's son recently put the Oklahoma registered voter database online in
a

>> searchable format to assist with validity checking. That will be hugely

>> helpful.

>> 

>> While Tina has done lots of work, it's hard for one person to do all that

>> she does plus respond to all the complaints from current petitioners and

>> inquiries from prospective petitioners, not to mention answering frequent

>> questions about progress from Bill Redpath and me. We recently decided to

>> have Paul Frankel help with some of the local management assistance. I
had

>> gone to Oklahoma with the expectation that I might recommend removing
Paul

>> to save money, but right now I think we should keep him at least for a
month

>> to make sure new petitioners have someone they can reach quickly any time
of

>> day. Later we can reevaluate the cost of having him there.

>> 

>>  Tina invited me and the LPOK officers and activists to a nice restaurant

>> Tuesday night. I asked who would be a candidate if we got ballot access.
Out

>> of about ten people, at least 3 indicated interest, including one who was

>> against attempting this daunting petition drive originally (because it's
so

>> much work), but would run if we made it.

>> 

>> I told the prospect who might be interested in US Senate I'd give $200

>> towards the $1,000 filing fee if he runs in 2016, and someone else
quickly

>> offered another $200. I think we'll get several people to run for office
in

>> addition to having our candidate for President on the ballot if we get

>> ballot access.

>> 

>> (My plane, where I'm writing most of this note, just landed in DC. Final

>> thoughts below from the office.)

>> 

>> I'm not counting on legal help to make a difference in time for us.

>> However, if our counsel or the Oklahoma ACLU is successful in time, of

>> course that might make things easier.

>> 

>> I'm also mindful of keeping alive the dream for 50 state ballot access,

>> and the negative impact giving up in Oklahoma now might have.

>> 

>> A Libertarian from Austin, Texas, Michael Chastain, donated $4,000 last

>> week to help the Oklahoma petition drive. That's in addition to the five

>> thousand or so we raised online recently:

>> 

>> 

>>
http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/serious-help-needed-for-oklahoma-petition-driv
e

>> 

>> I rushed out to Oklahoma Saturday partly so I could be back in the office

>> Wednesday to meet Mr. Chastain in person (he was visiting the D.C. area
and

>> was interested in visiting the headquarters today--Wednesday).

>> 

>> I'll have more good news about support from Mr. Chastain soon.

>> 

>> The LNC-EC is schedule to meet Monday 12/7/2015, to decide whether or not

>> to continue the LPOK drive. I'm sending this info to all of you know in
case

>> you'd like more information before that meeting.

>> 

>> cc'ing Richard Winger.

>> 

>> --

>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director

>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20151202/6bc26683/attachment-0002.html>