[Lnc-business] Screening Presidential candidates

Tue Feb 9 13:40:14 EST 2016

Wes,

I'm not wedded to any particular set of criteria, and I'm all for
simplicity.  I'm open to any set of standards which will weed out those
candidates who are pretty clearly fringe/frivolous -- the ones who have no
hope of seriously competing for our nomination, and are either delusional
or just in it because they think it would be neat to declare themselves to
be Presidential candidates.

Dan Wiener

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict at lp.org> wrote:

> Dan,
>
> Just to be clear on the Presidential candidate listings, staff follows the
> instructions of the chair and LNC. If the criteria is changed, we'll try to
> follow the criteria. However, if you do change the criteria, I hope you can
> find a way to do it that doesn't create a lot of busy work for staff, the
> LNC, the candidates, or the state chairs. Requiring a certain number of
> supporters to be listed,  (e.g. chairs, members, LNC members, etc. ) is the
> kind of busy work I'm hoping is avoided.
>
> Conducting, for example, an approval voting process at the upcoming LNC
> meeting, where those with more than 50% support by LNC get listed, would
> not involve a lot of busy work. It's still objective criteria, just not
> overly engineered and time-consuming, and amendable by email ballot after
> the fact if necessary, such as if someone new files.
>
> If a few were pulled off our current list, I don't think there'd be a lot
> of comlaints. There'd be a lot of people happy about that. If, on the other
> hand, most were removed and only a few remained, then you'd probably see a
> lot of complaints.
>
> Wes Benedict, Executive Director
> Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
> 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314(202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict at lp.orgfacebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
> Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership
>
> On 2/9/2016 12:51 AM, Daniel Wiener 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
> <http://www.lp.org/>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 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
>
>

-- 
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
-- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160209/ffafdf25/attachment-0002.html>