[Lnc-business] Event funding

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Fri Jun 24 00:06:42 EDT 2016 

	I agree with Caryn and Joshua – we ought to have an overall strategy, or guidelines, that informs our decisions about which state-level events or causes (or candidates) to fund. The LNC evaluating proposals on a case-by-case basis without any consistent approach, has been an issue for years. I think the result has been a tendency for funding requests to be more likely to be approved if they come from people on the LNC, or known to the LNC, rather than proposals being viewed primarily on their merits.

	Of course coming up with a consistent standard for such decisions is difficult, especially when we're often looking at apples and oranges as well as changing circumstances. There is an alternative approach I think could serve well though. That would be listing any projects deemed by the LNC to be deserving on a website, and inviting party supporters to donate to the project(s) of their choice.

	In other words, crowdfunding. 

	We talked about this on the 2012-2014 LNC term, and even passed a motion supporting the concept, but somehow it never got implemented. I think the potential remains, and that crowdfunding could not only help us raise more money and empower our donors by giving them more choices, but it could also partially resolve for the LNC the recurring dilemma of fairly deciding which projects to fund from among all the worthy requests for funding that the committee receives.

	I said four years ago that we wouldn't necessarily even need as a committee to vet or censor the proposals seeking funds (see email thread below), but if we did have something like the APRC to ensure proposed projects were not contrary to our bylaws or platform, that could be a good thing.

Love & Liberty,
                                                ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (2016-2018)
                                     RealReform at earthlink.net
                                             (415) 625-FREE


===============================================================================

On Aug 27, 2012, at 6:34 PM, Starchild wrote:

> Geoff,
> 
> 	Thanks for your input. If the desire to move forward with this exists and constructive action is being planned/taken in the absence of any motion, I'm willing to hold off on introducing a motion, if you think that's a better approach.
> 
> 	I like your vision of a shop with lots of "products" from which to choose (similar to my dream of LP conventions with hundreds or thousands of vendor booths). To me that's not marketing, but actual *content* or *substance*, which from the donor's point of view is much better than marketing. Having a framework that allows all levels of LP affiliates to show their projects to prospective donors, and having donations go directly to the affiliates without the LNC ever touching the money, both sound excellent.
> 
> 	Adding an edit/control function to prevent affiliates from asking for money for unlibertarian projects seems to me unnecessary however. That is not to say this I would be unconcerned by such a project proposal -- I would be very concerned. However, it would merely be a *symptom* of a greater problem, namely the insufficient understanding of, and/or dedication to, libertarian beliefs which would cause someone in the LP to propose such a project in the first place. If other Libertarians were to see someone's name attached to a fundraising proposal to raise money for something that goes against our principles (and I do think names should be attached to the proposals), this could facilitate a number of other useful things happening:
> 
> • Leaders at the national and state level could make inquiries about what was going on at that affiliate
> • Particular topics could be identified on which a need exists for more/better internal education ("inreach"), perhaps leading to articles in LP News, website blog posts, etc.
> • LP members might think twice before selecting a person behind a dubious project as a national delegate or party leader, supporting him or her as a candidate, etc.
> • Occasionally, a reappraisal of our position or stance on a topic might occur -- a proposal might turn out to be more in synch with libertarian principles than it appeared at first blush
> 
> 	Alternately, an edit/control mechanism could be built in as a crowdsourced function rather than imposed as a unilateral top-down decision -- projects receiving a certain number or percentage of negative votes from site visitors could be removed or at least made less visible (e.g. moved to the bottom of the project listings). I believe acting as direct censors tends to lead to bitter disputes and dissatisfaction over censorship which do not serve the LP's interests, and that such heavy-handed control should generally be avoided except to the extent it's necessary for the very survival and sustainability of our organization as a libertarian party. Most of the time I think we're better off letting "the market" handle it.
> 
> 	Until we develop something like this in-house, what do folks think about listing LP fundraising projects on existing crowdfunding websites like Kickstarter.com, GoGetFunding.com, or IndieGoGo.com, and linking to those projects from a donations page on LP.org? Is anyone aware of any existing or previous LP or libertarian projects being hosted on crowdfunding sites? If you have links to such, or can describe how such projects went if they are concluded now, this could be helpful information to have in planning a similar feature for LP.org.
> 	
> 	If people prefer to host something like this on a freestanding site rather than on LP.org, I have acquired a couple domain names that I think are promising and which I would be willing to donate to the LP for a worthwhile project-based fundraising effort of this sort -- CrowdfundFreedom.com, and CrowdfundLiberty.com . If that does not materialize, I'm also open to working with others to develop one of these sites as an independent effort, for-profit or otherwise. I could imagine such a site serving as a portal through which to donate to all manner of pro-freedom projects and causes.
> 
> Love & Liberty,
>                                  ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> 
> 
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Geoffrey Neale wrote:
> 
>> Yes - I have a lot of suggestions, and I won't go into all of them.
>> 
>> First, I'd like to state for the record that I've been talking about this in
>> an "ad hoc" manner for a very long time, but my vision might very well
>> exceed what others have thought of.
>> 
>> I see a "fundraising central" kind of solution that would allow donors to go
>> to a single place, and see all of the activities going on at national, at
>> states, at counties, and decide how they want to give their money.  In other
>> words, if a "customer" goes to a "shop" and sees lots of things to buy, the
>> chances that they will spend more is significantly more likely.  It's just
>> marketing.
>> 
>> I would like to see a framework that would support all levels of LP
>> affiliates, but we would have to set up some expectations of appropriate
>> behavior for all, and perhaps some kind of edit/control function.  After
>> all, we cannot let just anyone ask for money for anything they want, if the
>> appeal is for something that violates our Bylaws or principles.
>> 
>> Also, we have to consider both FEC and IRS implications.  While there are no
>> FEC restrictions on us sending money to affiliates, there are restrictions
>> on whether or not we can accept money from the affiliates.  Also, if we were
>> to "channel" funds into the LNC, and then out to the affiliates, we WILL
>> have to consider that there are maximum donations that we can take in a
>> calendar year.  I'd prefer a way to "channel" the donations directly to the
>> affiliate, without us ever touching the money.  Also, with the IRS, if we
>> charge a fee for providing a service that is taken out of a donation, we may
>> very well be subject to having to pay tax on unrelated business income.
>> Even if we didn't have to pay tax, we might have other bookkeeping
>> implications I am unaware of.
>> 
>> In short, I strongly favor working out a plan for this, and would like to
>> see it launched with the entire LP in mind, because I do not think it is
>> that problematic to do so.  I also think this could be so valuable to all of
>> us.
>> 
>> That said, I am totally opposed to trying to "craft" this with a mail ballot
>> at this time, because there are so many possible implications that we have
>> not worked out.  I also am not inclined to dump a "good idea" on staff given
>> their workload at this time.  I do not know what this will cost, and who
>> will bear that cost.  I can see getting the IT Committee involved with this.
>> I can also see getting the overhead for this covered under the Affiliate
>> Support Committee.  There must be other possibilities as well, but this is
>> not currently budgeted, and we don't even know the costs.
>> 
>> Let's have a more well-rounded plan before we talk about motions, okay?    
>> 
>> Geoffrey Neale
>> Chair
>> Libertarian Party
>> 
>> PS: An investor that provides their own money towards a venture is commonly
>> known as an "angel".  I have already purchased (on behalf of the LP)
>> www.libertarianangels.com and .org.  I cannot communicate strongly enough
>> that this is something I am excited about, and will advocate and work
>> towards.
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lnc-discuss-bounces at hq.lp.org [mailto:lnc-discuss-bounces at hq.lp.org]
>> On Behalf Of Starchild
>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 9:09 PM
>> To: lnc-discuss at hq.lp.org
>> Cc: grassrootslibertarians at yahoogroups.com; Mark Hilgenberg
>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Small Projects motion
>> 
>> 	The general concept is definitely something I think is important in
>> terms of improving our fundraising practices and the amount of money they
>> bring in, and I'm inclined to make a motion along these lines. 
>> 
>> 	Before I do so, does anyone have any suggested edits that you think
>> would improve the language Utah vice chair Mark Hilgenberg offers below?
>> 
>> Love & Liberty,
>>                                ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 24, 2012, at 9:53 AM, travellingcircus at gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> Forwarded to LNC for consideration. 
>>> 
>>> -paulie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Mark <hilgi at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> As opposed to trying to get LNC consensus on what projects to fund, why
>>> not just create an open source list for projects from anyone. The LP could
>>> provide the listing on the website and process the fund raising in exchange
>>> for a fee to the LP if the project funded is not from the LP. 
>>> 
>>> This type of system is how crowd funding and other sites work. It is very
>>> Libertarian IMHO. 
>>> 
>>> Here is my quick and dirty, needs editing motion.
>>> 
>>> "The LNC will promptly undertake a project-targeted fund raising website
>>> page similar to Crowd funding to generate money for LP projects such as
>>> Facebook and other internet advertising campaigns on the theme "Vote
>>> Libertarian!" This page will also allow other affiliates, groups,
>>> individuals and companies the opportunity to promote their activities and
>>> raise donations.
>>> 
>>> In exchange for this service, non-LP projects will pay a fee of 10% of the
>>> money raised to the LP for establishing the webpage and donation system and
>>> the processing of the donations."
>>> 
>>> Mark Hilgenberg
>>> Vice Chair
>>> Libertarian Party of Utah
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Nothing new below, included only for context:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- In LNCDiscussPublic at yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer at ...> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: travellingcircus at ...
>>>>> Date: August 21, 2012 9:09:40 AM PDT
>>>>> To: region1rep at ..., lnc-discuss at ...
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Draft motions for LNC:
>>>>> Reply-To: lnc-discuss at ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm hoping that we get project fundraising started ASAP and Norm has a
>>>>> good explanation of how and why it works below. 
>>>>> As for the specific projects that George proposes, you can of course
>>>>> substitute other projects if and when someone introduces the motion(s) and
>>>>> debate their relative merits, and I hope to see some other ideas introduced
>>>>> for those. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -paulie 415-690-6352
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Norm Olsen region1rep at ... wrote:
>>>>> With regard to item 1):
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is an excellent strategy. That is, plan and implement small
>>>>> projects successfully, regularly, and then brag about the success. I have
>>>>> used this strategy in other organizations successfully. So regular that
>>>>> there is an annual plan which produces small projects scheduled round
>>>>> Liberty News publications, which are followed up by a fund raising effort;
>>>>> all schedule for maximum effect as much as 12 months in advance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The important thing is to achieve something, and then tell the whole
>>>>> world about. It is next to impossible to grow an organization where the only
>>>>> thing it seems to do is beg for money. When our Monday messages, or our
>>>>> Liberty News' habitually announce the successful completion of a project or
>>>>> effort, regardless of how small, building membership and monthly pledges
>>>>> becomes so much easier.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Frankly, I disagree with the "small" projects suggested; I have in
>>>>> mind others that I (of course :>) think would be better. However, since the
>>>>> suggested projects are small, there will not be a big effort against them
>>>>> (one of the side benefits of this approach) and LNC approval is much more
>>>>> likely, perhaps not even required. Therefore, at least something will get
>>>>> accomplished.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am very much in favor of this approach: Regularly achieve an
>>>>> "accomplishment", regardless of how small, and then brag the hell out of it
>>>>> in preparation for the next "accomplishment". After a while, fund raising
>>>>> for the bigger projects will become easier and achieving larger and more
>>>>> meaningful "accomplishments" will become a habit.
>>>>> 
>>>>> With regard to item 2: I will considering introducing a motion
>>>>> concerning Oregon.
>>>>> 
>>>>> With regard to item 3(?J): I am still thinking about it; thanks for
>>>>> the prod.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Norm
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Norman T Olsen
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regional Representative, Region I
>>>>> 
>>>>> Libertarian National Committee
>>>>> 
>>>>> 7931 S Broadway, PMB 102
>>>>> 
>>>>> Littleton, Colorado 80122-2710
>>>>> 
>>>>> 303-277-9967
>>>>> 
>>>>> Norman.Olsen at ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight 
>>>>> you, then you win." -- Gandhi
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: lnc-discuss-bounces at ... [mailto:lnc-discuss-bounces at ...] On
>>>>> Behalf Of travellingcircus at ...
>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 6:06 AM
>>>>> To: George Phillies; lnc-discuss at ...
>>>>> Cc: Starchild
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Draft motions for LNC:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've asked people on the public lists for some time to come up with
>>>>> ideas in the form of motions for things that the LNC is allowed to do which
>>>>> it should do. Here's the only response so far. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) The LNC and staff shall undertake short-term projects, likely to be
>>>>> visible to the membership, fundable and funded as projects, to demonstrate
>>>>> that we can do politics effectively. In particular:
>>>>> 1) The LNC will promptly undertake project-targeted fundraising to
>>>>> generate money for facebook and other internet advertising campaigns on the
>>>>> theme "Vote Libertarian!", targeting young voters, and targeting issues that
>>>>> other parties are avoiding, including ending all foreign wars, ending the
>>>>> war on drugs, and ending internet and phone wiretapping.
>>>>> 2) The LNC will soon undertake project-based fundraising to republish
>>>>> key brochures in foreign languages corresponding to recent large-scale
>>>>> immigration, including Spanish, Mandarin, Russian, standard Hindi in
>>>>> Devanagari script, Hmong, and Vietnamese. 
>>>>> 3) The LNC will soon undertake project-based fundraising to support
>>>>> creating Libertarian Party affiliates in U.S. Associated Commonwealths and
>>>>> Territories that do not currently have affiliates.
>>>>> 4) The LNC will promptly undertake project-based fundraising to offer
>>>>> external support, e.g., advertising, for Libertarian Senatorial and
>>>>> Congressional candidates who meet objective standards, in particular (1)
>>>>> they are FEC filing, (2) they have an active web site and social media
>>>>> presence, and (3) they are identifiably doing legitimate fundraising or are
>>>>> self-funding.
>>>>> In all cases, at least 75% of all money raised for a project will be
>>>>> spent on that project.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [p: We may wish to produce key brochures in English as well. What 
>>>>> we have now are outdated brochures from the 1990s citing outdated 
>>>>> facts and statistics from that time. ]
>>>>> 
>>>>> [p: I am strongly in favor of project based fundraising in 
>>>>> general. I'm not sure whether these are the exact projects I would 
>>>>> propose first - I'd have to think of a few others, which I will do 
>>>>> later if this discussion goes anywhere]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From the same person:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2) In order to demonstrate to the membership that the LNC supports its
>>>>> own Bylaws, the LNC will promptly take necessary action to validate the LP
>>>>> Judicial Committee affirmation that the LP of Oregon is the group chaired by
>>>>> Wes Wagner. In particular, it will cease to support (as by providing
>>>>> publicity or internet services) the so-called Libertairan State Leadership
>>>>> Confernece, until such time as that organization accepts Wagner and group as
>>>>> the legiitmate party organization.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> [p: I believe the author means Libertarian State Leadership 
>>>>> Alliance]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would any of the voting members like to introduce either or both of
>>>>> these motions in either original or modified form?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Paulie 415-690-6352
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-discuss at ...
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org




On Jun 23, 2016, at 7:40 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

> Absolutely agree on every count.
> 
> and I do expect that more requests will come in, and that are there more requests that should be considered
> 
> and it is back before the LNC precisely because there is no apparatus in place.  Wes did not want to unilaterally make this decision and Nick also has a potential conflict due to his prior ties with Colorado.
> 
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm using a different subject because this isn't about the merits of the motion to support a booth at RiotFest.  Rather, these are questions that I see as arising from that motion.
> 
> My first question would be - if we do this (and on the merits it strikes me as something worth doing) we'll be asked to fund a number of such events.  It seems to me that, as a matter of board governance, we should come up with an overall strategy that informs such decisions.  If we can clarify the purpose of the LNC putting money and personnel into a booth at an event such as this, it may guide future decisions.
> 
> Which leads me to my next question - while no other apparatus exists for this at the moment, this doesn't look to me like the kind of question that needs to come before a national board.  I would suggest that, since I do expect these requests to continue coming if we fund this one, we build some intervening structures, or make use of ones that exist (maybe affiliate support?), empower them within a budget (outreach?  affiliate support?  a new line?), and give instructions based on my first question above.
> 
> Next - I have to admit that I am uncomfortable with a board motion specifying that a particular employee be sent to a particular place with a particular task.  That looks far too much like a management task to me, and I see a lot of potential for conflict if the board gets in the habit of doing that sort of thing.  It creates uncertainty for management if we swoop in and start moving staff members around.  Rather, I'd like to see a broad directive to staff to support these endeavors in such ways, and leave prioritization and decisions about who to send where up to management and, at times, the chair.  I think this, also, feeds back into my main point about board governance vs. management.
> 
> So I suppose what I am suggesting is that, in addition to whatever we decide to do on RiotFest, the LNC adopt a strategy, explicitly, regarding this sort of endeavor (we can define "this sort" as broadly as we think useful) and our strategic reasons for getting involved, of the sort that can inform an empowered committee and staff, rather than face the potential of the national board sorting through these sorts of requests - and, let's not forget, it's possible that there will be strategically useful events for which no request is made, but a committee established for that purpose might find them and suggest to the affiliate that a presence should be established there, and that funding will be available.  
> 
> Joshua A. Katz
> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 
> (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
> Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.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/20160623/75157ba7/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list