[Lnc-business] Thomas Simmons tv ad motion

Sat Sep 17 03:19:58 EDT 2016

Joshua makes a valid point that the funds we gave to John Moore's
re-election campaign were for general campaigning, rather than for a
specific marketing plan that we approved.

I do think John Moore's situation was quite different.  The LNC got a lot
more detailed information about the race circumstances, and I knew enough
of the situation to feel like there was a larger-than-usual team of people
on the campaign whose styles I sorta knew and felt like reasonable and
researched decisions would be made about how to use the funding.  I want
Mr. Moore to win, but even if he doesn't, there are non-trivial strategic
values to that particular expenditure.

What little I know of this request tells me that it is an idea, but not yet
a plan ready to execute if only the funding were available, though it is
presented as a specific action plan.  When I get that feeling, the way to
demonstrate whether or not that's the case is to ask specific questions
about the specifics we have been told to see if the homework has been done.

Cable companies absolutely will give potential advertisers a printed plan
that $X will buy you this many spots on the following shows which have
these specific demographics and have such and such average viewership.
Then you tweak your buy plan based on which demographics/viewership
combinations you have reason to believe will give you the most bang for
your buck.  If that question has not yet been asked of the cable company,
there isn't a plan yet.

There are 52 days until the election.  It would take 10 days for the LNC to
consider the request, so only 42 days would remain after that if we started
an email ballot today.  If the TV ad idea doesn't yet have a script, it is
not realistic to think there is time to write/hone the script, shoot the
video, go through the editing/production phases for the video and still air
it for 5 weeks prior to the election.

When I'm given plans that are unrealistic on the surface, my grip on the
wallet gets tighter.

-Alicia

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Patrick McKnight <
patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would like to amend this motion down to a total of $6,000. I also submit
> the following information from Mr. Simmons:
>
> "We're talking five weeks of three ads.  There is no realistic way to know
> what percentage of the electorate will see them, except that the only TV in
> western Mass is Cable and they are working through the Cable system, so
> ANYONE watching TV will see them.  Of course you can see the ad, I can not
> produce the ad without knowing I have the funds to do so!  The Storyboards
> give a general idea...we cant expect scripts or more polished ads if we
> cant guarantee to pay the studio.
>
> Most important, there will NOT be a "sea" of political ads:  NO ONE is
> spending TV time in Massachusetts, as there are NO OTHER CONTESTED RACES in
> western Mass!  The Presidential campaigns are not even spending money in
> Mass."
>
> Thanks,
> Patrick McKnight
> Region 8 Rep
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:23 PM, Patrick McKnight <
> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree. As we grow this will continue to become more and more of an
>> issue. The question is how we handle these requests. Creating a committee
>> to develop guidelines and protocol seems like the logical solution. If we
>> continue on an ad hoc basis we will leave ourselves open to charges of
>> favoritism and arbitrariness.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Patrick McKnight
>> Region 8 Rep
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with the Secretary that such requests need convincing reasons,
>>> beyond the fact that great things can be done with the money.  Great things
>>> can be done with the money in other hands, too - although I do think
>>> putting a plan together and getting a representative to put it forward
>>> counts for a lot in terms of showing what kind of campaign you are
>>> running.  Those who ask are almost certainly going to spend the money more
>>> effectively than those who don't ask.
>>>
>>> It is worth noting that we gave money last time, not for a specific
>>> purpose, but for general campaigning.  That makes it hard for me to
>>> critique the details here - I don't want to establish a scenario where
>>> specific purposes get voted down, but more general requests get approved.
>>> At the same time, there are huge differences between a reelection campaign
>>> and an election campaign - and, while I ended up voting for that one, I
>>> wasn't enthusiastic about it either.  I'm not enthusiastic about this kind
>>> of direct campaign giving.  I don't think it fits neatly into my "let
>>> national be national" agenda.  However, as we grow, we're going to have to
>>> do it.  I'm even less enthusiastic about doing it in this manner.  As I
>>> said in Vegas, I am not clear what the criteria are that we're using to
>>> decide where to give money.  Based on one data point, I can give a cynical
>>> suggestion, but I don't think it would be accurate.  I do think we're
>>> getting towards an answer as we talk about this one, though.
>>>
>>> I agree with my colleague from Colorado about the need for a committee
>>> to handle this, within a fixed amount of allocated money.  I do think the
>>> LNC should be setting the strategic agenda under which such a committee
>>> operates, though - that's a key board function and not one I'd delegate.
>>> I'd happily delegate the execution of that strategy within the topic of
>>> funding campaigns, though.  I disagree about the other committee matter,
>>> but I think we need to adopt an overall strategic vision before empowering
>>> such a committee.  If push comes to shove, I'd empower a well-formed
>>> committee without doing so, but in terms of ideals, I want the LNC to give
>>> strategic direction.
>>>
>>> I tried to get this onto the agenda in Vegas as a mid-meeting addition
>>> (in response to a message I received).  I'm not seeing my way clear to
>>> cosponsoring at the moment, though, because I don't like doing this
>>> overall, and I haven't yet seen a clear reason why this campaign is a
>>> worthwhile place to spend that money.  Also, before I can consider this, I
>>> think there's a practical question to be answered:  can we even give
>>> $12,000 to a MA campaign?  My suspicion is that we can't, and this motion
>>> would need to be modified to give some other channel through which it is
>>> proposed we make this happen - and that needs to be done carefully.
>>>
>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alicia, I agree with each point you made but also think we do need to
>>>> support some efforts such as the approval we gave in Las Vegas for
>>>> Assemblyman Moore.  However, we need filtering, guidelines, and protocol,
>>>> in other words, a Candidate Support Committee as suggested by the Chair
>>>> last meeting.  I am eager to sponsor appropriate motions to put such in
>>>> place.... provided the transparency issue is dealt with first which has
>>>> been side-tracked each time brought up.
>>>>
>>>> But as we grow we will need this type of support for candidates.
>>>>
>>>> I am willing to co-sponsor so it gets heard.  In debate, important
>>>> points will be raised.  Hopefully we can settle the transparency issues (up
>>>> or down)) and work on a Candidate Support Committee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *In Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We knew we would get more such requests when we contributed to John
>>>>> Moore's campaign.
>>>>>
>>>>> The LNC does not have the funding to spend this kind of money on all
>>>>> our candidates, so if someone is going to approach us to help fund their
>>>>> campaign as opposed to the many other options, they need to really sell the
>>>>> idea.  In the past 40+ years, we've had thousands of candidates who said
>>>>> that they had a real campaign with a real chance to win, but they come
>>>>> close to winning.
>>>>>
>>>>> We need very specific information about why this particular candidate
>>>>> is different, what the precise circumstances are, why he has a better
>>>>> chance to win than your average LP candidate, why this isn't just putting
>>>>> money in a hole that will only yield 1% results.
>>>>>
>>>>> A $12,000 budget doesn't win a congressional campaign, so how much
>>>>> other funding has he raised and what is he using it for?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would not vote for something so generic as $12,000 for a TV ad.  How
>>>>> many spots does that buy with what targeted demographics?  What percentage
>>>>> of the electorate will see it how many times?  Where is the ad so we can
>>>>> see if it's effective?  If the ad hasn't been made yet, what is the script
>>>>> for the ad?  There are good ads, and there are terrible ads, and the
>>>>> content matters.  What makes TV the most effective form of advertising for
>>>>> this, given that there will be a sea of other political ads?
>>>>>
>>>>> Etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Alicia
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Patrick McKnight <
>>>>> patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On behalf of Thomas Simmons (LP candidate for Congress, MA) I make a
>>>>>> motion to allocate $12,000 for a television ad in support of his campaign.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From Mr. Simmons:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The station reaches all 727,000 residents of the 1st congressional
>>>>>> district of MA, along with some 50,000 in VT and 50,000 more in NY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The District was reconfigured in 2013, and my opponent is a virtual
>>>>>> unknown in the Berkshire region (25% of the district) , which is all new.
>>>>>> He had no opposition in 2014.  An unscientific poll by the Recorder
>>>>>> newspaper showed he had 0% name recognition in the new part of the
>>>>>> district.  I NEED TO GET MY NAME OUT to these people, because I may be the
>>>>>> only name they hear. When has a Libertarian Congressional candidate had TV
>>>>>> ads? The size of my district (largest in Mass) means that the media market
>>>>>> is very specifically targeted to my district. It will be distributed
>>>>>> through the cable stations (the only TV we get out here), so no matter what
>>>>>> channel people are watching, they will see it."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://goog_1311939377>
>>>>>> http://simmons4congress.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would anyone like to cosponsor this motion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>>> Region 8 Rep
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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 Liberty,*
>>>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>>>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>>>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>>>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>>>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>>>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org>
>>>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
>>>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160917/af2df0c1/attachment-0002.html>