[Lnc-business] Screening Presidential candidates

Tue Feb 9 12:50:56 EST 2016

I agree with Mr. Wiener that publicizing is the place to look to make this
distinction.  I have some concerns with the items adopted, though.  By this
criteria, it's possible (I haven't looked at his FEC filings) that Donald
Trump wouldn't be considered a viable candidate for the Republican
nomination.  That said, I like this idea, and would be inclined to support
it, perhaps with some tweaking.  I understand the concerns about staff, for
instance, in a busy petitioning time, checking hundreds of names to ensure
that they are sustaining members.

I stand by my previous suggestion that we, as the LNC, just get out of this
game and keep our thumbs off the scale, without the problems Mr. Ludlow
talked about, by simply not publicizing or linking to any candidates.  I've
already noted that this isn't a far out idea - our two largest opponents
don't do it, so it's not like all parties are doing it.

That said, if a compromise is sought, something along the lines of Mr.
Wiener's suggestion seems to be the most viable path.

I would also point out that this falls under the general heading of a
comprehensive messaging strategy.  Such a strategy, when adopted in a
midterm to Presidential convention term such as this one, would ask not
only the what and who, but the why.  Why do we list candidates?  Why do we
point to their websites?  Why do we include some, but not all, of those who
have announced they are seeking our nomination?  How do we make the
selection - in a manner in keeping without the rest of our strategy?  We
can answer the how part by coming up with rules (and rules currently exist,
they just came from the chair, not the LNC), but not the second clause.  We
can't reference the selection to a comprehensive messaging strategy because
we don't have one.  That explains why we're hearing a lot of good ideas on
this, but all seem to revolve around actions with no pre-existing core.  I
agree that adopting such rules - if we think we need to publicize any of
our candidates - is a governance function, but it would be a lot easier to
do if it were part of a larger strategy.

Furthermore, I would say that concerns about being taken seriously reach
much further than the listing of candidates.  Indeed, if we don't believe
that our candidates could get their names out (not all, but some) without
our help - and, let's be honest, it's not like we pour millions into the
effort - that's an underlying issue that keeps us from being credible.  If
we think that and yet focus on the Presidential race, that's a credibility
issue.

Why do we lack credibility?  We lack serious candidates for many, many
races.  We lack elected officials.  We lack a widespread perception that we
can govern.  We run people for high office who have little in their
backgrounds that suggests they are prepared for that office.  We run people
for office with little expectation of success - for instance, I've had
people chuckle at my suggestion that a minimal qualification for a
candidate be that they plan to remain a resident of the relevant district
during the term.  (Of course, things happen, and people resign from office,
I fully understand that.  If you win office and need to move, I have no
complaint.  But who runs for office expecting to resign?  If you have a
fixed plan in mind to move in year 1 of what would be a 6 year Senate term,
it doesn't seem to me that you're a totally serious candidate for Senate.)
 Our problem is not what's present, it's what is not present - and if we
can address that, if we can build a serious bench of hard-working public
servants, governing in a reliably libertarian manner, if we can then have
credible, serious candidates moving up from that bench, I think a lot of
this concern will just fade away.

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

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Kevin, I agree with you that I don't like our party being embarrassed by
> fringe candidates.  I have urged for a long time that we create more
> stringent criteria for officially acknowledging those individuals who've
> decided to run for the LP's Presidential nomination.  (Not to stop them
> from running, just not publicizing them.)  Four years ago I proposed a
> Policy Manual amendment to do just that (see the email below), but it went
> nowhere.  Who knows, perhaps the LNC may have more interest now than it did
> then in coming up with *something* to distinguish serious candidates from
> frivolous ones.
>
> However, back in 2011 I did succeed in adding the following provision to
> the Policy Manual:
>
> *Section 2.06 PARTY COMMUNICATIONS*
> *5) Assuring Quality Communications*
> If a majority of all LNC members notify the Secretary of their belief that
> a proposed or actual public communication is detrimental to the image of
> the Party, such notification to occur no later than 72 hours after the
> public communication is published, the Secretary shall inform the Executive
> Director and Chair of this finding, and such communication shall not be
> further disseminated, and to the extent possible, already-disseminated
> material shall be promptly removed from the public sphere.
>
>
> You should keep this provision in mind for any future instances in which
> you've spotted something which you think is "detrimental to the image of
> the Party".  Whether it's something new on the LP web site or Facebook page
> or whatever, you should immediately email the LNC with your objection.  If
> a majority agree with you and act fast, it can be quickly deleted.  Failing
> that, four LNC members can sponsor a motion to delete it, although the
> voting on such a motion will take a lot longer.
>
> As a member of the Advertising & Publication Review Committee, I should
> also mention that the APRC does look at all LP communications.  However,
> its role is officially limited to assuring that the Platform, Bylaws, and
> Policy Manual are not violated, and its deliberations are required to be
> confidential.  So when issues arise from time to time, no one outside the
> APRC sees what things are prevented from being published, nor does anyone
> else hear the concerns and arguments (and disagreements) which are
> expressed within the committee.  That can often be frustrating for those of
> us on the committee, but those are the limitations we have to abide by.
>
> Dan Wiener
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
> Date: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:14 AM
> Subject: Policy Manual motion on Presidential candidates
> To: LNC Discussion <lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org>
>
> I haven't seen any further suggested modifications for the last five days,
> so at this time I am proposing a motion to make the following changes
> (underlined in blue) to Section 2.08(2) of the Policy Manual, and I am
> asking for co-sponsors.
>
> Daniel Wiener
>
> *Section 2.08(2) Limitations on Party Support for Public Office*
>
> *Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services or
> promotional material for any candidate for public office prior to the
> nomination unless:*
>
> * • such information or services or promotional material facilities are
> available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have
> declared they are seeking the nomination for President or Vice-President,
> providing that a candidate is qualified according to the following
> criteria:*
>
> *·      The candidate is a sustaining member of the national party; and*
>
>
> *·      The candidate supplies a list of at least 100 sustaining members
> of the national party who have declared that they consider the candidate to
> be "acceptable"; and*
>
>
> *·      The candidate has raised at least $5,000 in campaign contributions
> from donors other than the candidate or the candidate's immediate family.*
>
> *·      During the month immediately prior to the national nomination
> convention, an additional criterion is that the total money which the
> campaign has raised since the candidate announced **shall have exceeded
> $10,000* *(from donors other than the **candidate or the candidate's
> immediate family)**.*
>
> *• or, such information or services are generally available and announced
> to all party members** in the case of non-national candidates.*
>
> *• or, the service or candidate has been approved by the state chair in
> the case of non-national candidates.*
>
>
> *Qualified Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidates may, with the
> assistance of any LNC member, post promotional material to the LP Blog, but
> the total number of such posts shall be limited to the number of 30-day
> periods prior to the nomination convention (rounded up) from when a
> candidate first became qualified.  A list of qualified candidates along
> with links to their web pages shall be featured on the www.lp.org
> <http://www.lp.org/> web site and in LP News, and may be included in
> appropriate publications and mass emailings to members.  In each case there
> shall be a disclaimer stating that the party does not necessarily endorse
> or agree with the candidates or the contents of their web pages. *
>
> *The above restrictions do not apply to the dissemination of newsworthy
> information about candidates and their campaign activities, where the
> source or the object of the information involves significant media outlets
> which are not affiliated with the candidate.  Contemporaneous newsworthy
> information about a candidate shall be aggregated to the maximum extent
> practical. The APRC shall be authorized to resolve any uncertainties by
> majority vote.*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160209/8671e076/attachment-0002.html>