[Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
Ken Moellman
ken.moellman at lpky.org
Fri Oct 21 23:48:47 EDT 2016
I would submit that prior to censure, a conversation might be in order
to get more information. We don't even have all of the facts. Here's
what we know:
1. We have a candidate who is an elected official, was approved by an
affiliate to run as an L, and to which the LNC gave money.
2. The candidate voted for 2 tax increases, the latter of which is to
entice a franchise in a monopoly to come to his district.
3. The candidate claims 60% of his constituents supported the latter
one.
4. The affiliate that nominated him is angry, has censured the
candidate, and has asked National to censure as well.
Now, if the goal is to get Moore to switch to some other affiliation or
to Independent, then certainly censure would be a good start. But I
think it might be good to speak to the elected official first.
And the question about "what's the line for this body?" is extremely
relevant. Has this body ever censured a candidate or elected Libertarian
before? Is this a practice we want this body to make more regular?
Again, I'm not in favor of this cronyist garbage, and after Cincinnati
signed a similarly-stupid deal with the Bengals, and tied revenue to an
increased local sales tax, I just avoid buying things in Cincinnati when
possible.
---
Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
LPKY Judicial Committee
On 2016-10-21 23:22, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
> And I would distinguish greatly a state candidate from our national candidate which was ratified and consented to by delegates at a national convention. A state candidate is ratified by those delegates (in most states and in normal circumstances which do not involve a mid-term Party affiliation switch). In such a case I give great deference to the affiliate that welcomed and championed. And once again, Nevada has made their absolute displeasure and sense of betrayal clear.
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:19 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I find what if's and mining the subjunctives to be unhelpful personally. I do not know what kind of transgression would warrant in a "what if" situation. I would say yes, we should always be willing. Our duty is not to any elected person but to the Party itself and the principles for which we stand. This is a clear egregious violation which is somewhat like what some say about "pornography" - I know it when I see it. I would ask if someone commits to be a Libertarian and acts completely against Libertarian principles and received money from the National Committee of said Party is that committing fraud against the body? If the constituents feel defrauded (particularly since they elected a Republican, not a Libertarian) then it is up to them to deal with, not us. Our standing and duty is to the LP and the members.
>
> This isn't a minor issue. This was major with a capital M. And Nevada has made clear how they feel about it.
>
> The minute was have the "uncensurable" we are doomed. We are the "Party of Principle" and we need to have the backbone to at some point say enough is enough, particularly when we spent $10K of our members' money.
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
> I'm glad that the dilemma is understood. And you did bring up the other question I had, after further consideration; would we, as a body, be willing to censure an elected Libertarian President Johnson? If this is the case, how bad would the transgression need to be before this body rebukes its own first elected President?
>
> We really need to help give our candidates and elected officials, to the limited extent that they exist, be successful champions for liberty. And by "we", I mean every person who says they're a libertarian. If we can't go out and help convince other people's minds, then we're failing as activists and supporters. IMO, the root problem here is that 60% number. Why do 60% of the people in Moore's district support this?
>
> As I further discussed this with a few others this afternoon and evening, I had another thought. If someone is elected to represent the people of his district and fails to do so, would that person be engaging in fraud against the constituents?
>
> Every candidate and elected official has negatives. I personally prefer to focus on a candidate's positives, rather than dwelling on their negatives. If the negatives exceed the positives, then I start looking for an alternate course of action.
>
> ---
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
> On 2016-10-21 16:05, Demarest, David P. wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
> Thank you for your honest and thoughtful devil's advocate response regarding the proposed censure of John Moore. We can, however, view Assemblyman Moore's two egregious votes as an golden opportunity for LNC members to think outside the box to examine root causes and design short and long term solutions to the difficult dilemma faced by all Libertarian politicians. The dilemma is how to reconcile the dictates of one's Libertarian conscience with the realities of our current political environment that is rife with the cronyism necessary to get elected or reelected. The choice is between voting your conscience at the risk of not being reelected or violating your conscience to get reelected and live to fight another day in office.
>
> I would submit that Moore's violation of his conscience to get reelected makes him part of the problem of spiraling cronyism that is inexorably destroying our way of life and accelerating our economy and society down the path of destruction that history demonstrates is the inevitable fate of all compulsory territorial governments. Most of us support Gary Johnson in spite of specific misgivings because it is obvious that Gary is so much better than the other choices and would undoubtedly make things far better than the other candidates. If Johnson is elected, however, we know that despite his honestly about his platform, many of his decisions will give us heartburn. Our short-term act of censuring Moore will send a clear and unambiguous message that statist actions by Libertarian officials to save political seats are unacceptable violations of conscience that will not be tolerated. The proposed censure of Moore will serve as an educational message for all present and future
Libertarian officials including those who switch from other parties.
>
> Long-term solutions require that we understand that cronyism does not fare well in the competitive context of the free-market. By contrast, cronyism is aggressively fostered in our current compulsory authoritarian majority rule system. We as Libertarians face an uphill battle if we choose to rely solely on a top-down legislative authoritarian approach to rescue us from the tsunami of cronyism that will swamp our ship of state if we do not reverse course promptly and with a sense of urgency.
>
> The crushing curse of cronyism will not be reversed until we change the context of government to minimize instead of fostering cronyism. To get straight to the point, that change in context to discourage cronyism will not occur until we achieve competitive governance and competitive social services. I would further submit that we must supplement our top-down legislative strategy with a robust, bottom-up entrepreneurial peaceful freedom revolution fueled by peer-to-peer technology. Then and only then will we create the political climate necessary to elect Libertarian officials to all levels of government and establish the environment of competitive governance and social services that is an absolute prerequisite if we seriously intend to minimize cronyism and save our way of life for future generations.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> _ __ _
>
> _THE WAR ON MAJORITY RULE AUTHORITARIAN CRONYISM BEGINS NOW_
>
> _ _
>
> ~David Pratt Demarest
>
> Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)
>
> Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee
>
> Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee
>
> Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus
>
> FROM: Caryn Ann Harlos [mailto:carynannharlos at gmail.com]
> SENT: Friday, October 21, 2016 12:50 PM
> TO: ken.moellman at lpky.org; lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> CC: William Redpath; Demarest, David P.
> SUBJECT: Re: Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
>
> We have enough cosponsors for a ballot. I will argue for it in the ballot.
>
> It was an LPNV who last broached this action
>
> with me - I believe it has the support of the aggrieved affiliate - and members- who's money we spent.
>
> The second vote was expressly against something the LPNV was opposed to actively for years.
>
> This is a betrayal of the LPNV. And I certainly did not vote (and I argued zealously) to support a candidate - out of many worthy candidates - who would take such crony capitalist anti/libertarian power.
>
> On Friday, October 21, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman at lpky.org> wrote:
>
> Please allow me to take the Devil's Advocate position, since I probably won't have a vote that counts anyway. I realize that this position is unlikely to be popular.
>
> Politics and philosophy can be a tough balancing act. Certainly, there are instances of this problem with our presidential ticket (bake the cake, for example) and probably every other campaign out there (vaccination debate, etc.). Elected officials, and indeed individuals, are faced with tough decisions between philosophy and reality all the time. Perhaps the most famous was Jefferson's opposition to slavery while also owning slaves.
>
> Assemblyman Moore reported that a poll of the constituents of his district showed that about 60% of the constituents supported the deal, including the associated taxes. Certainly, there could and should have been a coordinated effort by the opposition to stop this deal by educating the public. Based on the level of support reported within Assemblyman Moore's district, those efforts were obviously unsuccessful.
>
> Even taking what was said above into account, I personally think Assemblyman Moore's greatest failing in this situation came was in how he supported the deal. A statement about "While I personally do not support this deal, I voted in favor because my constituents wanted me to do so" could have been a very good moment. It would have provided an opportunity to educate the public about the negatives of the deal and hopefully prevent this type of situation from happening the next time.
>
> So I ask these questions: Do you think that what John Moore did was driven by philosophy, or by politics? Do you believe that John Moore wanted higher taxes? As an elected representative, should he represent the people of his district, or ignore those people in favor of his own philosophy? Is it more wise to go against the constituency, especially this close to election day, or is it more wise to fight another day when your "army" is more organized and can help you win the day?
>
> Just something to think about. I'm not pleased at the idea of yet another billionaire getting a taxpayer-funded stadium and I don't believe they create enough economic activity to offset the costs. At least the team name is appropriate.
>
> ---
>
> Ken C. Moellman, Jr.
> LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative
> LPKY Judicial Committee
>
> On 2016-10-21 09:27, William Redpath wrote:
>
> I will also co-sponsor, as I was opposed to the $10,000 motion at the LNC meeting in July 2016. Bill Redpath
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 10/20/16, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for co-sponsors
> To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Cc: david.demarest at firstdata.com
> Date: Thursday, October 20, 2016, 9:20 PM
>
> #yiv9175739729
> #yiv9175739729 --
>
> _filtered #yiv9175739729 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
> _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15
> 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
> _filtered #yiv9175739729 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11
> 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
> #yiv9175739729
> #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729
> li.yiv9175739729MsoNormal, #yiv9175739729
> div.yiv9175739729MsoNormal
> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}
> #yiv9175739729 a:link, #yiv9175739729
> span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
> #yiv9175739729 a:visited, #yiv9175739729
> span.yiv9175739729MsoHyperlinkFollowed
> {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
> #yiv9175739729 p.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
> li.yiv9175739729msonormal0, #yiv9175739729
> div.yiv9175739729msonormal0
> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}
> #yiv9175739729
> span.yiv9175739729gmail-m-7066241125321024756gmail-m637561545514884297m-7093137337385855135gmail-s1
> {}
> #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729gmail-im
> {}
> #yiv9175739729 span.yiv9175739729EmailStyle20
> {color:windowtext;}
> #yiv9175739729 .yiv9175739729MsoChpDefault
> {}
> _filtered #yiv9175739729 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
> #yiv9175739729 div.yiv9175739729WordSection1
> {}
> #yiv9175739729 Caryn, I will co-sponsor your
> motion to censure John Moore and request that he return the
> $10,000 campaign contribution from the LNC. Mr. Moore's
> two votes were egregious. Thoughts? Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High
> and LIVE FREE! The Invisible Hand of
> Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of
> Government! ~David Pratt Demaresthttp://www.lpne.org [1]
> secretary at lpne.orgdpdemarest@centurylink.net [2]
> david.demarest at firstdata.com
> Cell: 402-981-6469Home: 402-493-0873Office: 402-222-7207 [3] From: Lnc-business
> [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of
> Caryn Ann Harlos
> Sent: Thursday,
> October 20, 2016 7:45 PM
> To:
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> Subject:
> [Lnc-business] Motion: Assemblyman Moore - request for
> co-sponsors
> Multiple
> party members including region 1 members have acted that the
> LNC take action regarding Assemblyman Moore. While normally,
> I would say that is solely an issue for the state party to
> handle, unless possibly, a Federal candidate, but in this
> case, we spent National Party member's direct monies,
> and thus I do agree this is our responsibility. As someone
> who advocated for the funds allocation, I believe it is my
> responsibility to address this once members raised a
> concern:
> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John
> Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to
> the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past
> month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days
> to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to
> support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian
> Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully
> opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to
> finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense
> of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in
> motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our
> state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to
> censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes;
> and Whereas we wish to convey a strong
> message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting
> legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who
> decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of
> conscience, we do not welcome them if they
> intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and
> acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the
> Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman
> Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases,
> requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution
> which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes
> him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held
> by members of the political party with which he has chosen
> to affiliate if he intends to remain a
> Libertarian.
> --
> In
> Liberty,Caryn Ann
> HarlosRegion 1 Representative,
> Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado,
> Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.orgCommunications Director, Libertarian Party of
> ColoradoColorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party
> Radical Caucus
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [4]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [4]
>
> --
>
> 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 [5]
>
> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [6]
>
> The information in this message may be proprietary and/or confidential, and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify First Data immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer.
--
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 [7]
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [8]
--
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 [7]
Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [8]
Links:
------
[1]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpne.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=ZPO-4J67vwV6ByD7vb8knOZpRMrndul0DsYJwqVwT_0&e=
[2]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__centurylink.net&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=37Lwyhxfp0qUBXRvtP01RB9aT0NWx-ASCm0rjSNqLTk&e=
[3] tel:402-222-7207
[4]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__hq.lp.org_mailman_listinfo_lnc-2Dbusiness-5Fhq.lp.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=wWePA5Va1fCm0ttiTeJdIi3OtI4h0gCUBlEZrJ7f0XI&e=
[5]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpcolorado.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=3CyYsd35iffGrxsilfZ1czCR0oVMAVvw5l_WxZNzv_Y&e=
[6]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.lpradicalcaucus.org&d=CwMFaQ&c=ewHkv9vLloTwhsKn5d4bTdoqsmBfyfooQX5O7EQLv5TtBZ1CwcvjU063xndfqI8U&r=POfq57_C0OM3236VPm9_N_9MhP1EEP_0raNPnh6qDnw&m=IV7aAHavSnzME6gqttSJKf9UdcwCKTeGCnzR9X5ehTM&s=kihfP26osC5fZJDyE0H_cy-uN_zGxmLOgr0D6_xQQg0&e=
[7] http://www.lpcolorado.org
[8] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20161021/a2a7e532/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list