[Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-10: Donation to the Mark Wicks campaign

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Well said Jeff.


On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 4:44 PM Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Below is a copy of Jeff Hewitt's "yes" vote on this motion.  Most of us
> didn't receive it in our inboxes, but it's documented in the list archives.
>
> -Alicia
>
> ----------------------------------
> From Jeff Hewitt hdigger2004 at aol.com
> Mon May 15 17:11:00 CDT 2017
>
> Anytime we get a candidate who is in a special election for a
> congressional seat and gets in a televised debate and conducts himself well
> and actually wins that debate then our party benefits. Measurably so. Mark
> Wicks deserves our support and I hope this sends a message that we welcome
> his effort, as well as others in the future. I vote "yes" to allocate $5000
> to his campaign. Jeff Hewitt Region 4 representative LNC.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I am still on the fence for this vote.
>>
>> There are some very positive things.  Mr. Wicks got into the debates and
>> did well.  He put more money into the race than just a filing fee.  He
>> raised a little more money than what he put in.  He mentioned that he
>> wished to use the money for online ads, and I asked if the ads were ready.
>> I heard through the grapevine that a volunteer I know to be particularly
>> talented with photography and video has completed some ads for him.
>>
>> One thing I am confused about is the plan for using the $5,000.  If it
>> were a larger amount of money, and there were more time in which to use it,
>> perhaps the budget could be rough.  But with so little time to use the
>> funding, there ought to be a definite plan for every penny.  The first info
>> we received from the candidate was that online ads were the plan.  Then I
>> saw on Facebook an ad to raise money for purchasing voter data, which
>> volunteers would use for phone calls and text messages...then someone (not
>> the candidate) emailed us to say that the funds were for voter data, not
>> online ads.
>>
>> I am still quite skeptical that an $11,600 budget can get traction at the
>> last minute when the other parties are pouring so much money into the
>> race.  Special elections are different creatures, often different
>> demographics for the turnout, only one race being talked about in the
>> media...but it also means the two major parties are not spread thin with
>> races in other states and can put a lot of effort into this one race.
>>
>> The LNC has limited funds.  I also voted against the deficit budget that
>> was adopted, and would like to not spend as much as was budgeted.
>>
>> We are not able to put money into every candidate's race, so that means
>> we have to choose races where we think our funds will provide the best
>> value.  Those choices are usually made based on the circumstances, rather
>> than directly based on the candidate.
>>
>> What I've not yet heard is what makes this race different from any other
>> randomly chosen Libertarian Congressional candidate.  Every candidate hopes
>> to win, but it hasn't happened yet at the Congressional level.  Why should
>> we expect to see results here that are better than the typical performance
>> of a Libertarian running for Congress against both a Democrat and a
>> Republican?  What is different enough that warrants us to deficit spend?
>>
>> I think the money we invested into Mr. Miller's Texas ballot access race
>> for railroad commissioner likely made a difference, as he retained by a
>> slim margin, avoiding the need for a very expensive petition drive later.
>> He had endorsements from several newspapers, but the result was still
>> within the range of a fairly typical outcome for a partisan L-branded
>> candidate.  So while Mr. Wicks has some good reviews from the debate, and a
>> media outlet calling him the winner of the debate, I'm not convinced that's
>> enough to substantially improve his numbers.  This is not a ballot access
>> race, and general goodwill as a result doesn't make this campaign
>> particularly unique.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> We have an electronic mail ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by May 19, 2017 at 11:59:59pm
>>> Pacific time.*
>>> *Sponsor:*  Sarwark
>>>
>>> *Motion:* that the LNC contribute $5,000 to the Mark Wicks for Congress
>>> campaign
>>>
>>> -Alicia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170515/9c63d07d/attachment-0002.html>