[Lnc-business] Candidate/Campaign Funding
Starchild
sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Wed Jul 19 11:15:33 EDT 2017
David,
Ken's message also gave me pause for thought, as I related in a response I just sent, so I'm heartened to see you share similar instincts about the wisdom of making the campaign/candidate-funding process more grassroots-oriented. As discussed in my response to Ken (and at the Google Docs link in that message), I've come up with another proposal toward this end.
While the LNC would still be the ultimate source of funds under this new proposal (I'm not sure how that can be avoided without convention delegates rewriting the bylaws so that a greater share of the incoming revenue stream go directly to the state affiliate parties), the states would determine which candidates/campaigns to fund and to what tune, rather than the LNC or LNC subcommittee(s) distributing the funds directly.
But even if the LNC goes this direction instead of taking funding applications directly itself, Scott Zimmerman's project support request form that you mention could be useful to whoever is making such decisions. I'll bet there are various forms and such that have been developed by activists for their state or local party chapters, which other state or local affiliates would find useful if they knew about them, potentially saving them time coming up with their own versions.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
RealReform at earthlink.net
(415) 625-FREE
On Jul 19, 2017, at 4:09 AM, David Demarest wrote:
> 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> 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
> (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> 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>
> Date: 7/18/17 11:24 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: 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
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
> 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
> 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 Phone
> 317-582-1773 Fax
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Joshua Katz <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> 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> 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
> Home: 402-493-0873
>
> From: Lnc-business [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
> 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
> 317.537.8344
>
> **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.
>
> On Jul 17, 2017 07:17, "Patrick McKnight" <patrick.joseph.mcknight at gmail.com> wrote:
> I vote no.
>
> Patrick McKnight
> Region 8 Rep
>
> On Jul 17, 2017 12:07 AM, "James Lark" <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
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> <Untitled attachment 01388.txt>_______________________________________________
> 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/20170719/570fd300/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list