[Lnc-business] Contract with campaign?

[Daniel Wiener]

Attached below are some emails I exchanged with Nick back in February on
the subject of a Presidential Campaign Contract.  Unfortunately nothing got
done back then.  What I would have liked to have happened is that the LNC
should have a adopted a *very reasonable* draft contract, which did not try
to extract every last ounce of advantage from our eventual Presidential
candidate.  We would have then pre-signed the contract and urged all the
Presidential candidates to do likewise prior to the convention.  If they
refused, delegates could have taken that into account.  If they objected to
some provisions and insisted on certain changes, we could have considered
those specific objections and if necessary revised the contract.

Instead we have the current situation: Still no signed contract three
months after the convention.  50-state ballot access is almost complete,
and we've lost most of our leverage.  The Johnson/Weld campaign is
accumulating a hundred thousand donors.  Will we have access to all that
information?  What do we do if they refuse to provide it to us?

Dan Wiener


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Wiener <wiener at alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Proposed Presidential Campaign Contract
To: "lnc-business at hq.lp.org" <lnc-business at hq.lp.org>
Cc: Oliver Hall <oliverbhall at gmail.com>

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 8:54 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160828/d2b19a4a/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Presidential Candidate Contract - with Special Counsel recommendations.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 122501 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20160828/d2b19a4a/attachment-0002.pdf>