[Lnc-business] Developing a regular process for funding Libertarian candidates and campaigns

[Joshua Katz]

I stand firmly in favor of empowered committees, and here's why.  It's not
because it's too much work for us to approve expenditures.  It's not
because we're too slow.  It's because I think the power to budget, and the
power to spend out of that budget, should be separated as much as
possible.  One reason for this is institutional, separation of powers, and
so on.  Another is more practical - the skills involved in the two
activities are different, and having different people do them allows for
each to be done by the people who are good at it.  Now, you might say -
actually, Starchild already did - that, well, the people good at figuring
out how the money should be spent can do that, then give it to us for
approval.  On what basis will we approve or disapprove?  We've already
decided how much money should be spent on the broad category, we've already
acknowledged that the committee members are better than we are at deciding,
within that broad category, how it should be broken down, but we want to
check their work anyway for some reason?

For another thing, while we're not nimble, I have argued on this list
before that not being nimble is a good thing.  Expanding on that theme,
boards have important jobs to do.  Organizations of a certain size need
boards, and they need them to do board-y things.  No matter how smart or
skilled people are, their minds are not good at switching frequently from
big picture to small picture.  You can't have your board down in the weeds,
telling staff how to do their jobs, figuring out the best strategy for a
small-town city council race, deciding between funding a state rep race in
Nevada and a Congressional race in Massachusetts, and also expect that same
board to provide effective board governance.  Small example - if the board
is involved in those sorts of questions, emotional attachments develop,
which boil up when that same board tries to create budgets.  These need to
be separated because the high-level functions are important and won't be
done effectively if they are not.  Being slow is also part of a board's job
- the sorts of things a board deals with should not be changed suddenly,
have large lag-times, and need to be dealt with slowly.  Boards steer large
ships; let management drive the speedboats.

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

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:04 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I would have to hear all arguments for and against giving funding
> authority.  Frankly, we are not nimble enough or responsive enough to
> handle the requests.  I would think a hybrid mode of empowering up to a
> certain amount and recommendations for larger amounts to come before the
> LNC.  At some point, we can't do it all.  And I have been very happy with
> the way that the ASC has been handled with Daniel Hayes voluntarily
> conducting it in a very transparent manner.  And I do believe that LNC
> members should be paying attention to what these committees are doing and
> reviewing the minutes. The buck ultimately stops with us.
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In general, I think subcommittees should report back to the LNC, with
>> ultimate power being retained by the committee of the whole. Getting away
>> from that model means putting power into the hands of smaller groups of
>> insiders and to some extent disenfranchising the representatives elected
>> directly by party delegates.
>>
>> In some cases, late-breaking developments or unforeseen circumstances
>> might justify providing funds to a campaign that had not submitted a timely
>> request for funding. In some cases, LNC members will be well informed on
>> the details of races, perhaps better informed than members of the
>> subcommittee.
>>
>> Once a process for applying for funding is established, I think the
>> natural tendency will be for the LNC to look skeptically on requests coming
>> outside that process, and to rely heavily on it's subcommittee's
>> recommendations for dispersing funds. But cutting the LNC out of the
>> decision-making loop would be a bad idea.
>>
>> Like Caryn, I would expect there to be rules mandating transparency for a
>> process such as I've described, and agree that should come first.
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>>                                  ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>                               (415) 625-FREE
>>
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 8:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>
>> And I largely agree with Joshua.  We have spoken on this quite a bit.
>> And of course, I would never vote to approve such a Committee without
>> transparency. The whole motivation behind my recent transparency motion is
>> to get to a place where we can craft THIS committee for candidate support.
>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that a process is needed if we're going to do this, and I
>>> largely agree with your suggested format.  I have a few suggestions.
>>> First, I would like to appoint the committee with power.  We should strive
>>> to appoint a committee that is well-informed and knowledgable on the topic,
>>> and let them decide how to parse out the money we budgeted.  We can't
>>> expect the LNC to be informed on the details of these races, and I'm not
>>> sure what is added by us listening to people who know more about the
>>> question, but then acting on the recommendation instead of letting them do
>>> it.
>>>
>>> At the same time, I'd like the LNC to give broad strategic direction to
>>> the committee.  We can tell them our major goals for this process, and
>>> where funding candidates fits into the bigger picture, and expect them to
>>> act in accordance with those broad ideas.
>>>
>>> That strategic direction should also, in my view, direct the choice of
>>> questions for that questionaire.  I'm not going to go through and note
>>> every point of disagreement with the suggested questions because, first, I
>>> realize they are only examples, and second, I think figuring out sorts of
>>> questions there should be without a more explicit statement of what we're
>>> trying to achieve is putting the cart before the horse.
>>>
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:15 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I continue to feel inadequately informed to vote on these various
>>>> requests for funding, and feel that we ought to try to develop a fair,
>>>> equitable, and predictable process for the LNC to handle funding requests
>>>> from state affiliates, LP candidates, and so on.
>>>>
>>>> One aspect of this that occurs to me is that while things like lawsuits
>>>> and outreach events can happen unpredictably throughout the year, most
>>>> general elections happen in November. For that campaign cycle, at least, I
>>>> think a promising method for making funding decisions might be to establish
>>>> two or three pre-announced funding periods during which times any LP
>>>> candidates interested in obtaining funding from the LNC would be invited to
>>>> submit their requests. For instance, we might hypothetically designate the
>>>> 2nd week in June (after primaries are generally over), the 1st week in
>>>> August, and the last week in September as periods for applying.
>>>>
>>>> For each of these periods, we could budget a total amount of funds to
>>>> be distributed, based on our current resources, and announce the
>>>> availability of these funds, along with the requirements and deadlines to
>>>> apply for a portion of them. Appoint a committee to review all the
>>>> applications received and make recommendations to the full LNC on how to
>>>> divide up the pile of funds available for that distribution period among
>>>> the various campaigns that applied. Lay out a clear timetable – say a week
>>>> for the committee to make its recommendations, and another week for the LNC
>>>> (to whom the applications would also be made available as they are
>>>> submitted) to meet electronically or in person, debate and vote on any
>>>> amendments to the committee's recommended disbursements, and get checks
>>>> sent out – so that campaigns would know when to expect the requested funds,
>>>> if any.
>>>>
>>>> To apply for funding, campaigns could be asked to fill out a standard
>>>> form (available on LP.org and perhaps printed in LP News) providing
>>>> information such as name, office sought (partisan or non-partisan),
>>>> campaign website, and responses to a number of questions such as:
>>>>
>>>> • How much money are you requesting?
>>>> • How would you plan to spend these funds (be specific)?
>>>> • How useful would it be to your campaign if you are only granted a
>>>> portion of the funding you request?
>>>> • Where do you fall on the Nolan Chart (submit filled-out quiz with
>>>> application)?
>>>> • What are your three top campaign issues?
>>>> • What campaign promises have you made?
>>>> • How much press has your candidacy received (include links/clippings)?
>>>> • Has there been any polling in your race, and if so, what were the
>>>> poll results (sources/numbers/dates)?
>>>> • How much money have you raised so far, and on what has it been spent?
>>>> • What are the legal restrictions on how much you can raise and spend?
>>>> • Who are your opponents and how much have they raised and spent?
>>>> • Besides trying to get you elected, what is your campaign doing to
>>>> build the Libertarian Party and advance the cause of freedom?
>>>> • Please list at least one reference other than a family member who can
>>>> vouch for you and your campaign and confirm as much of the information
>>>> you've provided here as possible.
>>>> • Will you provide to the LNC within 30 days of the election a report
>>>> on how your campaign went, and how the money granted to you by the party
>>>> was spent (being specific)?
>>>>
>>>> Some of the above questions clearly relate to candidates and would not
>>>> be relevant to ballot measure campaigns seeking to defeat or enact a
>>>> particular proposal. For those types of campaigns, there might be other
>>>> questions not applicable to candidates, such as:
>>>>
>>>> • Please provide the text of the measure in question (can be a web link)
>>>> • Please provide a list of the groups and prominent individuals
>>>> supporting the measure in question, and a list of the groups and prominent
>>>> individuals opposing it
>>>> • What is your assessment of the impact that passing this measure would
>>>> have?
>>>>
>>>> I would propose that campaigns not be deemed automatically ineligible
>>>> for funding as a result of failing to provide any particular requested
>>>> information, but obviously the LNC and the members of its appointed
>>>> subcommittee would be likely to take the completeness of information
>>>> provided into consideration when making their decisions.
>>>>
>>>> What do other LNC members think of this as a general approach for
>>>> general election campaign/candidate funding? Any suggested modifications or
>>>> additions?
>>>>
>>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>>                                     ((( starchild )))
>>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The initial request was for $12,000 for a television campaign and now
>>>> has been lowered to $5000.  I don't understand how either amount of money
>>>> on television can have any demonstrable effect on an election.  While this
>>>> opponent may have poor name recognition the Democrat Party has an extreme
>>>> hold on the vote process in Massachusetts.  How much money has Mr. Simmon's
>>>> raised for his campaign so far? This is always one of the considerations I
>>>> use when considering a donation to a candidate.
>>>> Also, as Whitney has stated, Mr. Simmons says he needs the entire
>>>> $12,000 from National.  That isn't legal.  There are ways around things but
>>>> that all takes extra time.  Even if members cosponsored this it would still
>>>> be at least a day before it even started being voted on and then would take
>>>> up to 10 days after that.  This motion doesn't meet the amount he says he
>>>> MUST have from the LNC and doesn't meet his time frame.  I wish luck to Mr.
>>>> Simmons in his campaign but I don't think we can help him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel Hayes
>>>> LNC At Large Member
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 23, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just bringing up the immediate practical concerns.  It takes day to get
>>>> co-sponsors, if they can be gotten and ten days for an email vote which
>>>> already puts this past any week deadline.
>>>>
>>>> We need a Candidate Support Committee badly.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Patrick McKnight <
>>>> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am seeking cosponsors of my amended motion to allocate $5,000 in
>>>>> support a TV ad for Thom Simmons. Thom is running for Congress in western
>>>>> Massachusetts. http://simmons4congress.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> I am forwarding the attached storyboard for Thom Simmons' proposed ad.
>>>>>
>>>>> From Thom regarding the storyboard:
>>>>>
>>>>> "They are looking at three different ads that would cover western
>>>>> massachusetts (Berkshire region), which, incidentally, would also spill
>>>>> over into NY and VT - which could only help with Alex Merced's Senate race
>>>>> and the J/W campaign in Vermont as I do not shy away from the Libertarian
>>>>> label. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The first and third require some explanation, as they are unique: they
>>>>> are REVERSE attack ads, meaning: at first, they start out dark as if they
>>>>> are an attack ad against me, with the voice over saying something such as,
>>>>> "he wants to end common core.."  The idea is to get people to say to
>>>>> themselves, "yeah, me too!"  and then end by showing people they agree with
>>>>> me and the LP after they have already said this on their own heads.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second ad plays on the print media, which has called my opponent
>>>>> "disappearing," "missing" etc, by showing him and then fading out.  It is
>>>>> the single biggest factor in this campaign, as the Berkshires - dems, reps,
>>>>> Inds...are LIVID at his inattention to that portion of the district.
>>>>>
>>>>> This could be a gamechanger.
>>>>>
>>>>> I realize that everyone wants money - and I will be blunt: if we are
>>>>> to do this, I need $12,000 for the full campaign from National. And I need
>>>>> to know within a week to get into production.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would appreciate it if you could bring this to the attention of the
>>>>> powers that be in the LP, and see we can get them to invest in my
>>>>> campaign.  The Mass State Cmte is fully aware of, and supports this
>>>>> request."
>>>>>
>>>>> "We're talking five weeks of three ads.  There is no realistic way to
>>>>> know what percentage of the electorate will see them, except that the only
>>>>> TV in western Mass is Cable and they are working through the Cable system,
>>>>> so ANYONE watching TV will see them.  Of course you can see the ad, I can
>>>>> not produce the ad without knowing I have the funds to do so!  The
>>>>> Storyboards give a general idea...we cant expect scripts or more polished
>>>>> ads if we cant guarantee to pay the studio.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most important, there will NOT be a "sea" of political ads:  NO ONE is
>>>>> spending TV time in Massachusetts, as there are NO OTHER CONTESTED RACES in
>>>>> western Mass!  The Presidential campaigns are not even spending money in
>>>>> Mass."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Thomas Simmons <simmons4congress at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:59 AM
>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Simmons rough storyboard concepts
>>>>> To: patrick.mcknight at lp.org, Larry.Sharpe at lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick and Larry,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am forwarding the very rough storyboard mockups from
>>>>> WeThinkAdvertising in Schenectady, NY, with whom I met last week for a
>>>>> possible TV Ad campaign.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are looking at three different ads that would cover western
>>>>> massachusetts (Berkshire region), which, incidentally, would also spill
>>>>> over into NY and VT - which could only help with Alex Merced's Senate race
>>>>> and the J/W campaign in Vermont as I do not shy away from the Libertarian
>>>>> label. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The first and third require some explanation, as they are unique: they
>>>>> are REVERSE attack ads, meaning: at first, they start out dark as if they
>>>>> are an attack ad against me, with the voice over saying something such as,
>>>>> "he wants to end common core.."  The idea is to get people to say to
>>>>> themselves, "yeah, me too!"  and then end by showing people they agree with
>>>>> me and the LP after they have already said this on their own heads.
>>>>>
>>>>> The second ad plays on the print media, which has called my opponent
>>>>> "disappearing," "missing" etc, by showing him and then fading out.  It is
>>>>> the single biggest factor in this campaign, as the Berkshires - dems, reps,
>>>>> Inds...are LIVID at his inattention to that portion of the district.
>>>>>
>>>>> This could be a gamechanger.
>>>>>
>>>>> I realize that everyone wants money - and I will be blunt: if we are
>>>>> to do this, I need $12,000 for the full campaign from National. And I need
>>>>> to know within a week to get into production.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would appreciate it if you could bring this to the attention of the
>>>>> powers that be in the LP, and see we can get them to invest in my
>>>>> campaign.  The Mass State Cmte is fully aware of, and supports this request.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for anything you can do for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thom Simmons
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Theresa Smolen <tsmediaconsulting at gmail.com>
>>>>> Date: Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:24 PM
>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Simmons rough storyboard concepts
>>>>> To: simmons4congress at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Thom, (We have another Simmons we have dealt with in the past - I
>>>>> apologize for my last email with Scott in the greeting!)
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are three commercial concepts.
>>>>> They are very rough at this point. We will need more/better photos of
>>>>> you if you have more, so we can put together nicer storyboards for you to
>>>>> present.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let us know what you think!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Theresa
>>>>>
>>>>> Theresa Smolen
>>>>> Project Manager
>>>>> We Think Advertising
>>>>> 426 State Street, 3rd Floor
>>>>> Schenectady, NY 12305
>>>>> 518.810.8760 cell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain We Think
>>>>> Advertising proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or
>>>>> subject to copyright belonging to We Think Advertising. This E-mail is
>>>>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is
>>>>> addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are
>>>>> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action
>>>>> taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is
>>>>> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail
>>>>> in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the
>>>>> original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Christopher O'Reilly <coreilly at wethinkauto.com>
>>>>> *Subject: **simmons*
>>>>> *Date: *September 9, 2016 at 1:12:28 PM EDT
>>>>> *To: *Theresa Smolen <tsmediaconsulting at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher J O'Reilly
>>>>> President
>>>>> We Think Auto
>>>>>
>>>>> (518) 281-5540
>>>>> coreilly at wethinkauto.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> www.wethinkauto.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Website: Simmons4Congress.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160924/08ea7120/attachment.html>