[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit

[Joshua Katz]

I thank the Executive Director for his trip, and for this report.  The type
of question presented here is the kind where a board shows its true mettle:
 questions with no clear answers, and where there is a reason to be angry
with any decision made.  We wouldn't need a board if not to make the hard
calls.

It appears this will be an EC decision, and I have every reason to believe
that the EC will consider all relevant factors.  I would like to make a few
observations and point to a few things I consider relevant.

First, I think Mr. Ludlow raises excellent points which are worthy of
consideration.  I would add that not all decisions scale the way suggested,
though.  Spending x% of my income is different from spending x% of a
corporation's annual revenue - not because it's other people's money, but
because the total amount matters, economies of scale kick in, etc.  I think
I raised this issue early in the term when talking about fiscal
responsibility:  I pointed out then that, if our revenue were $10T, and we
had an opportunity to save $1,000, we should do so - but added the proviso
that, for instance, outsourcing certain things at a higher unit cost would
make sense with a $10T budget because of the possibilities for the rest.
Consider that a richer person might find hiring a cleaning service to be a
good investment, while a poorer person wouldn't - even though, since the
richer person has a bigger house, they could end up spending the same
percentage of their income.

I would caution, to respond to both Mr. Ludlow's incidental point and the
Chair's main point, that a board abdicates its responsibility if it allows
donors to call all the shots.  (See also House, season 1, episodes Control
- Babies and Bathwater.)  The board is elected to make the hard decisions,
not to punt them all.  In particular, the board is asked to exercise
stewardship over resources.  At the same time, gifts are often given for
specific purposes - here, though, we are talking about investing further in
order to recover the value of money spent.  We need to decide if the
additional we're looking to spend is worth it rather than toss it off to
donors.  We will be responsible for making the right decision, not those
who have already donated.  Earlier in the term, I suggested a way to
accommodate both necessities here, and I'll suggest it again since the
topic is again making itself heard:  the board could create a "wish-list"
of sorts - a list of projects which we'd like to do, but did not make it
into the budget, budgeted projects being higher priorities.  Each item
would have a projected cost, and we could display these on a website.
People could pledge, rather than donate, for a project - and those pledges
would be activated when the target is reached.  By first using unrestricted
funds for our highest priorities, particularly operating expenses, we'd
avoid the issue that plagues so many non-profits:  it is sexier to give
restricted funds for specific, visible projects than to keep the lights on
with unrestricted giving.  It also avoids the concern, which I share, of
allowing influential donors to set the priorities rather than the board
elected for that purpose.  I understand, and sympathize with, the concern
of cannibalization - even though I say the board should budget for needed
expenses, it's possible such a plan could cut unrestricted giving.  I'm
willing to gamble that it wouldn't, though, and rather that there are
people on the sidelines willing to give if spending priorities closer
matched their priorities.  This plan would give them the opportunity to do
so, and I do not think it would significantly hurt unrestricted giving.

Now, I will recount the reasons I supported pursuing ballot access in
Oklahoma originally.  First, of course, there was the discount rate
provided by a large conditional gift.  Second, we had put money towards
lobbying, and I would find it very problematic to fight for better ballot
access and then not take advantage of it.  This is not a sunk cost
proposition, since we can make those costs worth it.  Third, although it's
an extension of the second, it might hurt future lobbying efforts to not at
least make an effort - a legislator could rightly ask "you pushed for a
lower bar in Oklahoma, and then didn't even try."  We need to think of the
nationwide impact of our efforts - we are, after all, the national board.
Our actions in Oklahoma can have impacts on policy nationwide, and we need
to consider those.  Finally, I do believe in what might be related to the
Powell doctrine:  either don't enter a fight, or enter prepared to engage
and win.  We entered when we funded lobbying, and it made no sense to me to
give up after having won.  One victory should lead to another, not to
retreat.  It should be known that when we engage, we mean it.  Similarly,
while I think it is a mistake to compare ourselves to parties other than
the Tired Parties, the fact remains that lobbying for ballot access, and
then not pursuing it, creates an opportunity for another Less Tired Party
to steal our thunder - we're not in business to help them succeed, after
all, and it would be very problematic if we funded a lobbying effort that
got others, but not our own candidates, on the ballot.

The reality now appears a bit different than when we made that decision,
and I'd encourage the EC to consider how it has changed.  At the last LNC
meeting, we heard from Mr. Redpath some discouraging news about state
involvement.  From the Executive Director's report, it seems this may be
moving in a better direction, although it's hard to say for sure.  This is
a significant issue for a few reasons - for one, we're doing more than
Presidential, and I believe assistance with ballot access for things other
than Presidential should meet a higher level of scrutiny.  For another, it
will be state involvement that determines whether or not viable enough
campaigns are run to retain.  I understand that we can try to lower
retention hurdles, but I'm not in the habit of counting eggs and calling
them chickens.  I'd also point out that we want terrible things (from the
perspective of the Tired Parties) to happen - that is, we want Libertarians
to win elections and take their seats in municipalities across the state.
We don't want to get on the ballot and have nothing terrible happen, from
their perspective.  The costs are higher than projected, and we don't want
to pour good money after bad.  There has to be some line after which we
will cut our losses - the nature of high-stakes games is sometimes you
lose, and the easiest way to lose at poker (I'm told) is to refuse to fold,
to put your fear of losing blinds or even large bets over your fear of
betting more on a losing hand.

Finally, I concur in full with Mr. Ludlow's point about 50 state ballot
access.  I like to think that we approach ballot access questions carefully
and soberly, considering such things as conditional gifts, returns of
donations, and long-term strategic planning, not with an overriding
emotional urge for the number 50.  I'd rather get on in 48 states, and
retain in all, than get on in 50 and retain in none.  Obviously, those are
extremes, but my belief is that our first goal should be creating a party
that wins more elections and places more Libertarians in public office to
move public policy in a libertarian direction, not achieving 50 state
ballot access for our Presidential candidate.  Somewhere in between is
retaining ballot access, particularly in states where retaining for
President carries other races (and especially if it carries races we have a
good track record of winning).  50 state ballot access has, I fear, taken
on a purely emotional and symbolic meaning, far out of proportion to its
actual value to the goals of a political party.

I have purposefully presented arguments both for and against the increased
expenditure.  Since the EC will be deciding, I will not be making the
decision, but I'm told that my comments and advice are valued in decisions
in which I do not participate.  I'd rather present a list of items for
thought than a vigorous argument on one side if I will not bear
responsibility for the outcome, and save my vigor for decisions of the full
LNC where the members will rightly hold me accountable for our decision
(even if I don't happen to vote).  I break this rule sometimes, but I see
no reason to break it today.

Joshua Katz
Region 8 Alternate and Elected Libertarian

Joshua A. Katz
Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mr. Chair,
>
> Thank you very much for the fast response.  Your comments on the matter
> are well-received.
>
> If we have specific people offering to pay for this specific task then I
> suppose there isn't much I can argue against other than it does seem a
> little silly.  While I appreciate the notion that all 50 states would have
> ballot access, my previous questions were against the examination that
> there remains no real purpose to having 50-state ballot access other than
> it being symbolic.
>
> In many ways this is no different than people across the country pouring
> countless funds into gubernatorial races.  To the extent that certain
> percentages need to be met to retain state ballot access I understand, but
> to the extent that a Libertarian is going to win a governor's seat is just
> ludicrous.  Meanwhile there exist much smaller, manageable races across
> those states that with proper funding people actually could win.  I use
> this as a metaphor to the situation that while it's nice to say we have
> 50-state ballot access, I believe the truth is that it really doesn't mean
> anything for the benefit of the party other than some loose bragging rights
> to the 0.5% of the population that even knows what ballot access means.
>
> Still, I would likely support a measure on the mere notion that I am
> representing Oklahoma and of course want to see them succeed.  I merely
> wanted to put it out there to the group that I think we are approaching
> this kind of decision very lackadaisically and I would hope we would be
> more prudent with such decisions if our goal is to actually benefit the LP
> as a whole.
>
> To your question, I don't know exactly where money would go, but
> presumably somewhere that would produce more than a symbolic gesture for
> the party's success.
>
> Thank you again for your response.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 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-drive
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >> New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>> >> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.org
>> >> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>> >> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Lnc-business mailing list
>> >> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ========================================================
>> > Kevin Ludlow
>> > 512-773-3968
>> > http://www.kevinludlow.com
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ========================================================
> Kevin Ludlow
> 512-773-3968
> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151202/2b0fce42/attachment-0002.html>