[Lnc-business] Contract issues

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Fri Sep 23 08:15:01 EDT 2016 

	Sean, I think the incentive a presidential candidate would have to sign a contract pre-nomination is to show Libertarians whose support s/he is seeking, that s/he is willing to accept the proposed contract set forth by their elected representatives on the LNC.

	And good points, Arvin. I love the preliminary contracts idea, but agree the LNC should not require candidates to sign a contract. I would rather we require only that they provide their reason(s) for signing or not signing. This will help give Libertarians important information about how a candidate responds to an important choice. In some cases, LP delegates may agree with a candidate's reason(s) for rejecting our contract.

Love & Liberty,
                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                                 (415) 625-FREE


On Sep 22, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Arvin Vohra wrote:

> Hi Sean -
> 
> Contracts set forth by the LNC could easily be designed to be strongly biased in favor of either big name candidates or no name candidates. Thus, I would not support allowing the LNC to create a contract and require candidates to sign.
> 
> Simple example: A contract could require candidates to share their entire donor lists. This would be a bias against big name candidates. A contract could penalize candidates who did not gather sufficient new leads, creating a bias against no name candidates. 
> 
> Making it optional would give members the option of supporting a contract or non-contract signing candidate.
> 
> -Arvin
> 
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Sean O'Toole <sean at kingfieldcapital.com> wrote:
> Arvin,
> 
> I too support contract signing prior to the nomination. I'm curious why you would not support making the signing of such a contract a requirement in order to procure our nomination. What incentive would a candidate have to sign pre-nomination?
> 
> Sean
> 
> Sean O'Toole
> sean at kingfieldcapital.com
> (816) 739-2737
> 
> On 21 Sep 2016, at 14:32, Arvin Vohra wrote:
> 
> 
> LNC - having heard the feedback from Messrs. Sarwark, Katz, and Goldstein that the contract provides value to both the campaign and the Libertarian Party, I am satisfied. There are plenty of things we keep secret (e.g. donor lists) for strategic reasons, and it seems that we have a strategic reason to do so here (it gets us a contract). I would obviously prefer transparency here, but if that is a dealbreaker, then I recommend we move forward and focus on downsizing government.
> 
> However, I will be either making or cosponsoring a motion to allow future presidential campaigns to sign preliminary contracts with the LNC before nomination. I will not support making this a strict requirement, but I do believe that this process should be make easier in the future if possible.
> 
> -Arvin
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope you are just not in on the secret.
> 
> Sam
> 
> Sam Goldstein
> Libertarian National Committee
> Member at Large
> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101
> Indianapolis IN 46260
> 317-850-0726 Phone
> 317-582-1773 Fax
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am horridly out of touch.  I hear they aren't even using the term "dank" any longer,  I can't keep up.
> 
> -- 
> 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
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
> FYI: All the cool kids are using poisoned Skittles as the correct
> analogy these days.
> 
> -Nick
> 
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And to add saying "withe exception of that one clause" is precisely the
> > issue.  A meal may be delicious with the exception of the few grains of
> > arsenic.  I will not focus on the savour of the steak but rather the sting
> > of the poison.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
> > <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Protecting the interests of the party and its members and us do not
> >> include eternal secrecy.  While some might have trouble seeing it, no, in a
> >> contract negotiation, something as huge as that, should not be missed.
> >> Whether or not it is "understandable" is not the question.  It is
> >> extraordinarily prejudical and and negligent.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> In response to the implied question:  Having read the contract, I find it
> >>> to be a good agreement, and one that delivers excellent value to the Party,
> >>> with the exception of the clause under discussion.  I personally have
> >>> trouble seeing the implications of that clause, even after having it
> >>> explained to me, and so it makes perfect sense to me that those implications
> >>> can be missed during an extended negotiation where the primary focus was on
> >>> protecting the interests of the party and obtaining value for the party.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Joshua A. Katz
> >>> Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear All,
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to clear something up.
> >>>>
> >>>> The LNC authorized me to negotiate a contract and joint fundraising
> >>>> agreement between the party and the Gary Johnson campaign.  I have,
> >>>> for the past three and a half months, been working with our counsel,
> >>>> Oliver Hall, to negotiate a contract that would be in the best
> >>>> interest of the Libertarian Party.
> >>>>
> >>>> During those months, terms have changed during the course of the
> >>>> negotiations in both agreements.  At some point I asked Mr. Hall about
> >>>> the advisability of making the provisions of the contract public both
> >>>> before and after the election.  His advice was that it would not be
> >>>> advisable at any point, but definitely would not be prior to the
> >>>> election.  Based on that discussion, my preference would be to keep it
> >>>> confidential until inauguration day.  That was what I communicated to
> >>>> the list, but that communication was in error.
> >>>>
> >>>> The actual contract requires confidentiality of the terms.  Mr.
> >>>> Goldstein pointed out that phrase to me and I sent a correction to the
> >>>> email list as soon as I realized that I had misspoke. I understand
> >>>> that this misspeaking has created a lack of confidence and a motion to
> >>>> rescind the entire authority to execute the contract.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like it to be clear that making the contract public was not,
> >>>> to my knowledge, one of the stated objectives at the LNC meeting
> >>>> following the convention for our contract with the campaign.  A very
> >>>> small and vocal minority making it into an absolute requirement at
> >>>> this late stage of the negotiations is shifting the goalposts in the
> >>>> final seconds of the game (after, I'm not sure if signatures are
> >>>> already on the campaign's copies).
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the contract negotiated is a good one.  Others who have seen
> >>>> it are probably within their bounds to say whether they consider it a
> >>>> good or bad agreement, without discussing specific terms with LNC
> >>>> members who will not agree to keep it confidential.
> >>>>
> >>>> The effect of this motion would be to cancel everything negotiated
> >>>> because I misspoke and/or people value transparency over any other
> >>>> goal.  If that's what you want to do, you should co-sponsor it and
> >>>> vote for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yours in liberty,
> >>>> Nick
> >>>>
> >>>> P.S. Recognizing that eventual transparency is important to the
> >>>> aforementioned small and vocal minority, Oliver and I are actually in
> >>>> negotiations with the campaign for some kind of addendum that would
> >>>> modify the confidentiality terms to address those concerns.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> >> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arvin Vohra
> 
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Arvin Vohra
> 
> www.VoteVohra.com
> VoteVohra at gmail.com
> (301) 320-3634
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160923/53c52d02/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list