[Lnc-business] report on Oklahoma visit
Wes Benedict
wes.benedict at lp.org
Fri Dec 11 12:35:23 EST 2015
Kevin, you wrote: "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."
Some Libertarians agree with you on this, but a lot of Libertarians do
not agree with you on this. But it is a common debate that has raged on
daily for decades between groups of people that refuse to listen to each
other--so don't count on it ending any time soon.
Nationwide, there are 142 Libertarians holding elected offices: 38
partisan offices, and 104 nonpartisan offices.
http://www.lp.org/candidates/elected-officials
See the attached Chapter 15 of my book, Introduction to the Libertarian
Party - Why Run for Office, for some of my views on the issue.
If getting just one person elected to a partisan office is your most
important goal, then you could personally recruit someone to run in a
tiny district in Pennsylvania and get it done, almost 100% as a result
of your efforts (plus the person you recruit). So could other people who
promote winning a partisan election above all else (and in other states
too--just that PA is easiest). And they don't need anyone's permission
to work on it.
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 12:14 PM, Kevin Ludlow wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232>,
> wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>
> facebook.com/libertarians <http://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 <mailto: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
>> <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232>, wes.benedict at lp.org
>> <mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org>
>> facebook.com/libertarians <http://facebook.com/libertarians>
>> @LPNational
>> Join the Libertarian Party at: 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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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/(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 <tel:303-263-4995>
>>>
>>> *From:*Lnc-business
>>> [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:512-773-3968> with any questions /
>>> comments.
>>>
>>> Thank you much for your time.
>>>
>>> Kevin Ludlow
>>>
>>> Region 7
>>> 512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968>
>>>
>>> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Wes Benedict
>>> <wes.benedict at lp.org <mailto: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.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ========================================================
>>> Kevin Ludlow
>>> 512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968>
>>> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ========================================================
>> Kevin Ludlow
>> 512-773-3968 <tel:512-773-3968>
>> http://www.kevinludlow.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20151211/907fab74/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Book - Intro to the LP Why Run for Office.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 185521 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20151211/907fab74/attachment-0002.pdf>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list