[Lnc-business] Proposed Presidential Campaign Contract

Sun Feb 21 03:11:45 EST 2016

I believe that this conversation came up at our July meeting in DC.  I
admittedly haven't read all of the details here, but specifically following
Mr. Wiener's comments, I tend to agree with him.

For one, it's an incredibly disproportionate proposition.  If I won the
nomination I'd be more than happy to give you all of my contacts; I haven't
worked all that hard to accumulate them.  If McAfee or Johnson wins, they
have much, much larger networks than I would.  Not that I think we should
all be treated equally - life isn't fair - but it's sure to raise a brow or
three.

So anyway, I'm not necessarily shooting this down, but I do want to voice
my support for what Mr. Wiener wrote.

-Kevin

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:17 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> The Libertarian Party's database of membership and contact information is
> one of our "crown jewels".  It is highly proprietary data which would cause
> us enormous damage if it were to somehow leak into public view or hostile
> hands.  That's why we have to insist on the use of a bonded third-party
> mail house, thus shielding it even from our Presidential candidate, to
> avoid the risk that some campaign staffer or outside contractor might
> accidentally or intentionally compromise its security.
>
> But the same logic applies in reverse.  A prominent person seeking our
> Presidential nomination may start with his own large following, accumulated
> over many years via business or political or celebrity status.  That data
> constitutes his own "crown jewels", and its security is just as important
> to him as ours is to us.  Why should he entrust it to the LP?  If we want
> to market the LP to his pre-existing list, we should have to go through the
> same hoops (e.g., bonded third-party mailing house) that we demand when he
> wants to market to our pre-existing list.
>
> Hey, if a candidate is willing to gift the LP his pre-existing list, that
> would be wonderful.  But it shouldn't be a contractual condition.
>
> And yes, we bring ballot status to the table.  But the candidate brings
> his presumed political skills to the table, along with a willingness to
> campaign full time as our Presidential nominee.  That's the more proper
> comparison.
>
> It boils down to this:  We need to propose a Presidential Agreement which
> most if not all of the Presidential candidates, along with objective
> observers, will consider reasonable and fair to both sides, not one which
> disproportionately skews towards the Libertarian Party.  That's the only
> way that we'll persuade the 2016 candidates to buy into it, and that's the
> only way that we'll be able to convince the convention delegates to add
> this requirement to the Bylaws for future elections.
>
> Dan Wiener
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, a candidate comes to the table with a list that may have been
>> developed over some period before he/she announced for the LP
>> nomination. But the LP comes to the table with ballot access earned
>> over 45 years. We should get the whole list if the candidate gets our
>> whole list.
>>
>> All inquiries about the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate
>> should be given to the LP for an opportunity to convert them to a LP
>> member, regardless of whether the inquirer asks specifically about the
>> LP or not.  This should not preclude the candidate from also
>> responding to the inquiry, or even for there being a day or two
>> between the candidate's response to the inquiry and the LP's response.
>>
>> -Nick
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>> > After reviewing the proposed Presidential Agreement which Nick sent out
>> > earlier tonight, I have several suggested edits:
>> >
>> > 3(c)(ii):
>> >
>> > Upon signing this Agreement, the Candidates and Campaign Committee shall
>> > promptly provide to the LNC their "campaign" lists, i.e., their most
>> current
>> > lists of contributors, inquiries and volunteers and the mailing and
>> e-mail
>> > addresses and telephone numbers of those persons, and their "media"
>> lists,
>> > i.e., their most current lists of media contacts and the mailing and
>> e-mail
>> > addresses and telephone numbers of those persons.  This requirement
>> shall
>> > only apply to names on those lists which were obtained after the
>> Candidates
>> > announced that they were seeking the LP nomination. The Candidates and
>> > Campaign Committee shall provide to the LNC promptly as and when they
>> are
>> > received, and at least weekly, any additions or updates to those lists.
>> The
>> > Candidates and Campaign Committee intend that these lists shall be
>> added to
>> > and merged with the lists owned and maintained by the LNC, so that the
>> LNC
>> > shall have the unrestricted ownership and use of the lists in the
>> future in
>> > order to advance the interests of the LP. Notwithstanding the
>> foregoing, the
>> > Candidates shall retain a limited license to use those lists following
>> the
>> > Campaign for their own personal noncommercial use insofar as such use
>> does
>> > not conflict with Libertarian Party objectives.
>> >
>> > 3(c)(5):
>> >
>> > The Candidates and Campaign Committee shall direct all inquiries about
>> the
>> > Libertarian Party from interested voters, media representatives and
>> others,
>> > to telephone numbers, mailing and e-mail addresses and persons
>> designated by
>> > the LNC.
>> >
>> >
>> > My rationale is that I don't think it's reasonable to demand a
>> Candidate's
>> > entire list of contacts and supporters, many of which were accumulated
>> long
>> > before that Candidate sought the LP nomination. But once a Candidate has
>> > announced a run, all subsequent contact information should be fair game
>> for
>> > the LP.
>> >
>> > It's also unreasonable to limit the Candidate's use of such data to
>> > "personal non-commercial use". Candidates should be able to freely
>> utilize
>> > all of the data which they themselves collected, unless there is a
>> direct
>> > conflict with LP objectives (e.g., using that data to help another
>> political
>> > party or other non-LP candidates).
>> >
>> > Finally, Candidates and their Campaign Committees should be able to
>> respond
>> > to inquiries about themselves without having to redirect those
>> inquiries to
>> > the LP, unless the inquiry is specifically about the LP.
>> >
>> > Dan Wiener
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As mentioned, the attached contract incorporates almost all of the
>> >> proposals suggested by Mr. Hall.
>> >>
>> >> -Nick
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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)
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160221/48fb4e99/attachment-0002.html>