[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit

Fri Dec 11 12:14:02 EST 2015

Fair enough.  Thanks for pointing me to that.  I will read over all of
those minutes.

Provided what you're pointing me to answers that question then perhaps what
we lack is simply documentation organizing these strategies.  I know we
have some reports being generated, but a simple mechanism to steer
ourselves seems like it would be of value rather than having to sift
through minutes.  Still, I'm happy to do it and perhaps will propose a
better system at our next LNC meeting.

Thanks again.
Kevin

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

> The LNC discussed, debated, and adopted specific goals this term, not the
> "implied goals" Mr. Olsen refers to. It was probably before you joined the
> LNC. I realize you joined to replace another member that resigned.
>
> They're in at least one of the minutes here:
> http://www.lp.org/leadership/lnc-meeting-archives
>
> You might want to read all of the minutes for this term, because they have
> a lot about ballot access in them, as well as other things.
>
> 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
>
> On 12/11/2015 11:59 AM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
>
> Wes,
>
> No, I definitely did not know that.  It seems like it would be the case as
> presumably we would get more efficient with our efforts over time, but I've
> not seen any data to illustrate that point.
>
> In case I've come across poorly, I don't want to seem as if I object to
> the idea or anything like that.  I just want to encourage the body to have
> specifically defined strategic goals rather than the "implied goals" that
> Mr. Olsen was referring to.  As an advocate of the devil, while ballot
> access may be cheaper, one could still ask what it's end goal is.  I would
> argue that getting a single person elected to a partisan office would have
> a far greater impact than simply allowing others (who will realistically
> never win an election) to run for office through our ballot access
> measures.  I concede one affects the other and am not making a case for
> either, but just illustrating how the strategy could differ if it were
> defined that way.
>
> For the time being, I'm delighted to see the party working so hard to help
> Oklahoma, am totally behind the effort, and hope that it provides the party
> with a big morale boost and helps boost the party throughout the state.
>
> -Kevin Ludlow
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Kevin, did you know that ballot access has gotten easier and cheaper,
>> year after year, as a result of our decades of sustainable efforts?
>>
>> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>> *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314*
>> (202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232>,
>> <wes.benedict at lp.org>wes.benedict at lp.org
>> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>> Join the Libertarian Party at: <http://lp.org/membership>
>> http://lp.org/membership
>>
>> On 12/10/2015 10:57 PM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate the variety of voices responding to my questions.  And to
>> Mr. Olsen, 6 paragraphs were most certainly welcome :)
>>
>> I apologize for not being on the call on Monday.  Unfortunately work does
>> occasionally take precedent over my extra-curricular activities - political
>> or otherwise.  I was also fairly confident the vote would pass and of
>> course it did.  So regardless of anyone's position on the matter, here we
>> are.
>>
>> The gist of what I was getting at was simply to have the cost/benefits
>> explained to me.  Mr. Tomaso nailed one simply by citing the overall morale
>> boost that ballot access provides.  While perhaps difficult to measure,
>> there is no doubt relevance to the claim.  Mr. Olsen, however, adds a tick
>> to the "con" side in that he cites the difficulties with the sustainability
>> of ballot access.
>>
>> In most any business model one would likely be advised to stray AWAY from
>> something that is unsustainable.  It becomes difficult to predict costs,
>> there is always an element of being unsuccessful, and meanwhile there exist
>> goals that actually ARE sustainable should one direct their effort that way.
>>
>> Perhaps I'm still just too new, but it simply struck me that I could not
>> really weigh the cost/benefits of the financial decision we were about to
>> make in any practical way.  I have since been informed of 1 or 2 costs and
>> 1 or 2 benefits, but it still seems the Libertarian party should really be
>> making decisions almost exclusively upon this kind of analysis and having a
>> specifically defined strategy rather than an implied one as Mr. Olsen
>> points out.
>>
>> Anyway, thank you all for listening and for responding to my questions /
>> concerns.  I appreciate your time.
>>
>> -Kevin Ludlow
>> Region 7
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Scott L. < <scott73 at earthlink.net>
>> scott73 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am very glad that the Regional Representative from Colorado is asking
>>> us to look at and evaluate “This implied goal, or objective if you
>>> prefer, is 50+ state ballot access for the Libertarian party.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, now is not a good time for a full-blown analysis of the
>>> issues that the Regional Representative is asking us to look at.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are only 6 months away from the end of our LNC term, and only 6
>>> months away from the beginning of the General Election portion of the 4
>>> year Presidential Election Cycle.  I think we have a moral commitment to
>>> our members to maximize the number of states that the *2016 *Libertarian
>>> Presidential Nominee is on the ballot, obviously constrained by how much
>>> money we have available to pay for signatures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> However – the next LNC *should *start discussing the topic of ballot
>>> access at their very first full-weekend meeting of the next LNC term.  That
>>> way, they have at least 6 months before they even have to begin collecting
>>> signatures to get a candidate on the ballot for vote test purposes for the
>>> Nov. 2017 elections (VA, NJ, and a couple of others).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That being said, I disagree with the Regional Representative’s statement
>>> that “Since specific strategies and or objectives have not been
>>> established, the vacuum is filled with the implied objective of achieving
>>> 50+ state ballot access.  While a noble and legitimately political
>>> objective, it suffers from several problems;  the most significant of which
>>> is the problem of being unachievable on a permanent, or even
>>> semi-permanent, basis .”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Republican and Democrat Parties have permanent ballot status,
>>> because they understand that if they removed ballot access for the other
>>> major party in even one state, that “accomplishment” could be turned into a
>>> nationwide scandal.  But until the LP becomes a major party (1) the
>>>  Libertarian Party will not have “permanent” ballot access in any state.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, we CAN achieve semi-permanent ballot access in 50 states, or
>>> darn close to that number.  To do that, the LNC needs to stop focusing on
>>> October ballot access, and instead focus on December ballot access.  That
>>> probably means sacrificing ballot access in a few states BEFORE an election
>>> in an even-numbered year, and using the money saved to lobby or sue for
>>> lower vote tests in states that have ridiculously high vote tests (Alabama
>>> and Connecticut come to mind).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      Scott Lieberman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1.  Defined by the FEC, for example, as receiving 25% of the vote for
>>> President
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto: <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>
>>> lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Norm Olsen
>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2015 11:50 AM
>>>
>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Kevin . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >> why we should be focusing so many efforts on Oklahoma?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’d like to take a shot at answering your question.  I have been asking
>>> similar questions for five years now.  I could write a book in response.
>>> But alas; you ask for a paragraph.  And a short one at that.  Would I be
>>> unreasonable to supply five or six paragraphs?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The LNC does not have a specifically defined strategy; nor does it have
>>> a stated set of objectives.  The indisputable result is that it does not
>>> have a list of tactics (i.e. well defined activities) to pursue to achieve
>>> any of these undefined objectives.  While attempts have been made, I am
>>> unaware of any meeting that has established such strategies/objectives or
>>> any writing in the bylaws or policy manual that establishes such.  (The
>>> policy manual lists a set of “core activities”, but that’s about it.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, the LNC is not totally rudderless.  There exists an
>>> implied basic goal and implied tactics to achieve the implied goal.  I
>>> became aware of this implied goal (although I did not immediately recognize
>>> the significance of it) at my very first LNC meeting in November of 2010 in
>>> New Orleans.  At that meeting, the following motion was adopted:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>> <https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf>https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf
>>> <https://www.lp.org/files/2010-11-20-LNCMeetingMinutes-NewOrleans.pdf>*
>>> (printed page 17, .pdf page 17):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> . . . moved to authorize the Executive Committee to encumber expenses
>>> for ballot access,
>>>
>>> notwithstanding the provisions of section 1.05 of the Policy Manual, for
>>> the year 2011.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Section 1.05 of the Policy Manual is that section which limits
>>> Executive Committee encumbrances to that which has been budgeted.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This motion was made, seconded, *and the question called* in a time
>>> frame of about 35 seconds.  It was approved by a 11-1 roll call vote.  This
>>> implied goal has been recertified, implicitly, in every budget resolution
>>> pass by the LNC in the last 5 years.  The Ballot Access Petitioning Expense
>>> line typically receives 65% to 85% of the budgeted discretion funds in each
>>> year.  You participated in the budget discussions of the 2016 budget where
>>> Ballot Access Petitioning Expense was allocated 70% of the funds available
>>> for allocation among the Policy Manual’s “core activities”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This implied goal, or objective if you prefer, is 50+ state ballot
>>> access for the Libertarian party, with some added emphasis on Presidential
>>> elections.  On the surface, this appears to be a noteworthy objective.
>>> However, it has been adopted implicitly rather than explicitly.  That is
>>> why the question you asked comes up from time to time.  Gaining ballot
>>> access in all 50 states is the primary focus of the LNC, and remains a
>>> primary focus in fundraising efforts.  (It’s hard to raise funds to
>>> purchase office supplies, much easier to raise funds for ballot access.)
>>> And so, given the improved chance to gain ballot access in Oklahoma, even
>>> if it is for a single election cycle, it is not surprising that the effort
>>> is getting a large share of our attention and resources.  Given that this
>>> has been the primary focus of what the LNC does, and has been doing for at
>>> least two (if not four) decades, it is something we must demonstrate
>>> success at or we begin to lose the respect of our members and donors.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That answers the primary question, but the leaves the follow up
>>> questions begging for an answer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Since specific strategies and or objectives have not been established,
>>> the vacuum is filled with the implied objective of achieving 50+ state
>>> ballot access.  While a noble and legitimately political objective, it
>>> suffers from several problems;  the most significant of which is the
>>> problem of being unachievable on a permanent, or even semi-permanent, basis
>>> .  Thus, the LNC has a single overpowering objective which is absorbs most
>>> all of its resources to achieve, and continued consumption of these
>>> resources to maintain to the degree achieved.  In other words, a pleasant
>>> way of saying an enormous, perpetual, drain on resources which precludes
>>> most all other possible uses of financial resources.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have been suggesting for some time now that expending most all of our
>>> discretionary funds on ballot access petitioning may not be the best use of
>>> the financial resources entrusted to us by our members and donors.  For
>>> that, I have been unofficially dubbed the “nattering nabob of negativity”
>>> of the Libertarian Party.  However, things are looking up.  Thanks to
>>> efforts of the Chair and Executive Director, the 2016 budget includes
>>> $45,000 for Affiliate Support, up 4,500% from where it was in 2014.  Our
>>> Affiliate Support Specialist contractor appears to have made more progress
>>> in just three months than the LNC has in the previous six years (since the
>>> formation of the Affiliate Support Committee).  I look forward to the time
>>> when the “core activities” other than the Ballot Access Petitioning
>>> activity are allotted equivalent amounts of the financial resources
>>> entrusted to us.  At that time, the primary question and the follow up
>>> questions will both, hopefully, be moot.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have ballot access in 28 states; and ballot access is reasonable
>>> (e.g. ~1,000 signatures) in another 10 states.  The low hanging fruit in
>>> the ballot access arena has been picked.  It’s time to start producing
>>> political success in the 38 states where we have ballot access or can
>>> reasonable obtain such.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Norm
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Norman T Olsen
>>>
>>> Regional Representative, Region 1
>>>
>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>
>>> 7931 South Broadway, PMB 102
>>>
>>> Littleton, CO  80122-2710
>>>
>>> 303-263-4995
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto: <lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org>
>>> lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Kevin Ludlow
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 2:21 PM
>>> *To:* lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Wes Benedict < <wes.benedict at lp.org>
>>> 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>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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 listLnc-business at hq.lp.orghttp://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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20151211/69a20f7d/attachment-0002.html>