[Lnc-business] Candidate/Campaign Funding

Wed Jul 19 08:09:37 EDT 2017

While I am generally in support of small symbolic financial contributions to proven candidates in important races, Ken’s comments highlight several important considerations.

In the past year, Nebraska LP county affiliates have increased nearly ten-fold and are taking the bull by the horns on county-level projects, tasks and campaigns. This has allowed the LPNE State Central Committee (SCC) to focus on statewide concerns and assume a more appropriate role as a source of inspiration, information, training and advice on best practices as opposed to being a major financial resource. As we well know, Libertarian institutions at all levels have limited budgets that obviate their ability to act as cash cows for affiliates and individuals requesting campaign or project financial support.

I have long promoted the concept that the bulk of fund-raising should be handled from the bottom up rather than from the top down, starting at the grassroots level of every project, campaign and even subcommittees. Top-down contributions should be limited to small symbolic rewards for competence and relevance aimed at planting seeds of inspiration and self-sufficiency rather than fostering dependence.

Scott Zimmerman, LPNE SCC Chair, has developed a truly outstanding project support request form that could easily be adapted to requests for candidate support. Scott’s form is worthy of consideration by the committee envisioned in Sam’s forthcoming motion. I will check with Scott on the availability of his form for use by our forthcoming committee.

One additional comment – excessive top-down project and campaign contributions are more consistent with authoritarian quid-pro-quo pandering of preferences in exchange for influence to escape the rigors of the free market as opposed to the Libertarian ideal of leading by example, inspiration and collaboration. Our role on the LNC is to foster self-sufficiency of affiliates and individual Libertarians and discourage dependency. We can better fulfil our role by providing inspiration and guidance rather than acting as a source of excessive cash-cow handouts.

Thoughts?

~David

2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention

Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less

~David Pratt Demarest

LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

LSLA Vice-Chair

LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Ken Moellman
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 2:16 AM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Candidate/Campaign Funding

It's a comprehensive plan.  However, the enormity of it is exactly why I think we should focus on developing and enabling state parties and let them build up to the point of being able to properly support the candidates in their state.  I'd rather see 50 states doing this task in parallel, where they're actually able to meet the candidate and likely do a better job of assessing the candidate.

I've run several campaigns and I was a statewide candidate myself (first executive branch candidate for LPKY, ever).  I have asked for help in those various campaigns, but not received it.  In hind sight, I realize that it was probably wise.  Though my own statewide campaign was largely about spreading the party out statewide, it was not framed that way and therefore the "now" version of me would have voted against the request made by the "then" version of me.

If we're building state parties, I'm for it.  If we're running temporary campaigns, I'm generally going to be against it.  I see the LP as the "long game" and therefore I believe in funding infrastructure and foundational items over temporary campaigns.  Exceptions do exist. 

We can't run the party from this body.  What we can do is help the party grow, so that a more local party can run a real political ground game and get some people into elected office.

ken

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net <mailto:sfdreamer at earthlink.net> > wrote:

If all committee members would be LNC members or alternates, what would be the advantage over simply having the LNC as a whole vote on these requests? 

Delegating this matter to committees populated (at least partly) by non-LNC members would help bring a wider crossection of LP members into the leadership, but a new committee composed only of a subset of the LNC would mean once again putting a handful of insiders in charge, while excluding those LNC members not on the new committee from the decision-making process. From the perspective of having committees reflect the makeup of the LNC as selected by the delegates and the regions, such an approach is arguably worse than having a committee composed solely of non-LNC members (in which case all LNC members would be on the same footing).

On a separate but related note, I think we should limit the number of committees on which individual LNC members can simultaneously serve. Is it honoring the will of the delegates and regions to emulate the U.S. Congress by allowing the LNC to delegate various powers to subsets of the LNC so that some LNC members serve on many powerful committees while others serve on few or no committees?

Love & Liberty,

                                  ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                         RealReform at earthlink.net <mailto:RealReform at earthlink.net> 

                                 (415) 625-FREE

                                   @StarchildSF

On Jul 18, 2017, at 8:26 PM, Daniel Hayes wrote:

I second that strongly. 

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 18, 2017, at 10:37 PM, goldsteinatlarge <goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com <mailto:goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com> > wrote:

This committee will be LNC or Alternates in my proposal.  We are selected by the delegates or regions to make this type decision, not volunteers who answer to no one.

sam

Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7 active, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------

From: David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net <mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net> > 

Date: 7/18/17 11:24 PM (GMT-05:00) 

To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org>  

Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-16: Joe Buchman Donation 

Sam,

I suggest that the motion include a committee selection method (appointed and/or volunteer). Since this will obviously be an important committee of interest to us all, I suggest that the motion specify a minimum of three LNC members and two non-LNC members [substitute your own numbers].

Thoughts?

~David

2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention

Freedom, Nothing More, Nothing Less

~David Pratt Demarest

LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

LSLA Vice-Chair

LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary

Cell:      402-981-6469 <tel:(402)%20981-6469> 

Home: 402-493-0873 <tel:(402)%20493-0873> 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Sam Goldstein
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 8:28 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-16: Joe Buchman Donation

Yes, I'm working on a motion to create a Candidate Support Committee to be tasked with first

developing a set of guidelines (subject to LNC approval) for LNC contributions to individual 

candidates other than POTUS.  Once the guidelines are approved the committee will submit

a proposed budget as a new line item for the 2018 LNC Budget then will administer the distribution

of funds.  The Committee might also be tasked with supporting  the new Candidate Support Specialist

position, if we so choose.

Any ideas about motion formulation will be appreciated.

Live Free,

Sam Goldstein

Libertarian National Committee

Member at Large

8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101

Indianapolis IN 46260

317-850-0726 <tel:(317)%20850-0726>  Phone

317-582-1773 <tel:(317)%20582-1773>  Fax

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com <mailto:planning4liberty at gmail.com> > wrote:

Our colleague from Indiana has told us he plans to introduce a motion in August. 

Joshua A. Katz

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Ken Moellman <lpky at mu-net.org <mailto:lpky at mu-net.org> > wrote:

What committee would be charged with coming up with these guidelines?  Another committee?   I'm pretty busy so I don't think I want to commit to direct action on another committee.  But as a former campaign manager, and former candidate, I would like to give some suggested guidelines or watermarks.  

ken

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:42 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest at centurylink.net <mailto:dpdemarest at centurylink.net> > wrote:

I hope I am proved wrong but it looks like we have a vicious circle – Continuing ‘No’ votes on candidate support motions until we develop guidelines and no appointees or volunteers so far to develop guidelines.

Am I missing something here?

I am sure there are more qualified LNC and LP members but I will volunteer to be part of an effort to develop candidate support guidelines. We will need a strong leader to meet this challenge. Is this a matter of Nick either appointing a committee leader and supporting committee members or soliciting volunteers? I suggest that both LNC and non-LNC members be part of this initiative. Any other volunteers? Might be a good opportunity for new or aspiring LNC members. 

Thoughts?

~David

2018 Omaha Roads to Liberty Un-Convention

~David Pratt Demarest

LNC Region 6 Representative (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

LSLA Vice-Chair

LPNE State Central Committee, Secretary

Cell:      402-981-6469 <tel:(402)%20981-6469> 

Home: 402-493-0873 <tel:(402)%20493-0873> 

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org> ] On Behalf Of Brett Bittner
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 6:47 PM
To: lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org> 
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2017-16: Joe Buchman Donation

TL; DR - I vote nay on email ballot 2017-16.

My thoughts: I find myself in the same situation as I did when the Wicks motion was presented. At that time, promises to come up with a procedure we made (and we even delayed considering a request from Senator Ebke for that procedure to be in place), yet action has yet to materialize. I believe that our first duty is to win elections, and without a process to vet funding requests, we are ill-equipped to determine which campaigns should receive our limited funds. 

As both Arvin and Sam have outlined my concerns, I don't feel the need to reiterate them. 

I appreciate Dr. Buchman's many years of service to the Party and as an activist, and I think very highly of him. I also enjoyed seeing his debate performance online, and I think he did a tremendous job of offering a different perspective in that debate. 

Unfortunately, I believe that we will never create a process for these type of requests if we continue to fulfill them in the ad hoc manner from our limited funds. As such, I must cast a nay vote. I will continue to do so for all candidate funding requests until we've established a process to vet such requests. 

Brett C. Bittner 

Region 3 Representative 

Libertarian National Committee 

brett.bittner at lp.org <mailto:brett.bittner at lp.org>  

317.537.8344 <tel:(317)%20537-8344>  

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Jul 17, 2017 07:17, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com <mailto:patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> > wrote:

I vote no.

Patrick McKnight

Region 8 Rep

On Jul 17, 2017 12:07 AM, "James Lark" <jwl3s at eservices.virginia.edu <mailto:jwl3s at eservices.virginia.edu> > wrote:

Dear colleagues:

    I hope all is well with you.  I am writing in my capacity as Region 5 representative to vote "nay" on the motion.

    As always, thanks for your work for liberty.

    Take care,
    Jim

    James W. Lark, III
    Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering
    Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
    Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics
    University of Virginia

    Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
    University of Virginia

    Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
-----

On 7/15/2017 4:15 AM, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by July 25, 2017 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Bilyeu, Demarest, Starchild

Motion:  for the LNC to contribute $5,000 to support the Congressional campaign of Joe Buchman (Utah)

-Alicia

_______________________________________________
Lnc-business mailing list
Lnc-business at hq.lp.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20170719/89f5ba7f/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 01388.txt
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170719/89f5ba7f/attachment-0002.txt>