[Lnc-business] Candidate/Campaign Funding

David Demarest dprattdemarest at gmail.com
Wed Jul 19 13:53:45 EDT 2017


Caryn Ann, Scott Zimmerman's form is specifically designed to encourage
both accountability and fund-raising ownership with little 'Binder of Doom'
risk. 😀

On Jul 19, 2017 12:44 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <carynannharlos at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I like the idea very much but it seems complex and a lot of paperkeeping
> work for smaller affiliates.  I would prefer a straightforward by
> membership tally with them being able to use as they wished in funding
> candidates in their own or other states.  This would be another benefit to
> raising membership numbers.
>
> But in general I like the idea very much and it resists the king-making
> impulses that will be natural as we grow to decide top-down what "kind" of
> candidates we want and using the national pursestrings to have a management
> say in the affiliates- even if indirectly.
>
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ken,
>>
>> You know, I think you may be right. After reading your comments here, I
>> believe I may have been barking up the wrong tree. I hadn't considered the
>> possibility of turning this function over to the state affiliate parties.
>> But your observation that we can't run the party from this body is spot on.
>> I also can't argue with the sentiment that *"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".*
>>
>> The details may still require a bit of finesse though. When I started
>> thinking about it, an issue quickly became apparent – precisely how to
>> transfer candidate/campaign support spending authority to the affiliates.
>>
>> One straightforward way to do it would be to divide the funds that the
>> LNC has been spending for this purpose among the state affiliates using a
>> proportional formula based on membership numbers. But while relatively
>> simple and easy, this formula would have a significant downside, namely
>> that it could frequently result in less money going to a state affiliate
>> with several attractive candidates or campaigns seeking support, than to
>> another state affiliate with fewer Libertarian candidates or less
>> attractive campaigns that cycle (e.g. my state of California, which has the
>> most members, but is saddled with a "Top Two" law that has greatly reduced
>> the number of statewide candidates).
>>
>> I do have a slightly more complex proposal [don't worry Sam, it's shorter
>> than my previous proposal, lol!] that I think could address that problem in
>> a satisfactory manner, but I'd like to get your input on it Ken, and that
>> of others, as well as hear any other suggestions for how to empower the
>> affiliate parties to fund candidates and campaigns.  For instance, perhaps
>>
>> Toward this end, I've started a Google Doc* document where my latest
>> proposal can be viewed, and people can suggest modifications to it or
>> propose their own alternate language for a motion addressing the general
>> topic of LNC funding of candidates and campaigns:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17CxIixeu1GoQKLcJKQ05gvU-
>> 4jh35lX-B9vHJCKlzIA/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> [You don't have to be on the LNC to comment – if you're reading this on
>> the reflector list and would like to suggest some motion language, or have
>> other feedback or ideas for an approach on this issue, please feel free to
>> go to the link above and comment.]
>>
>> Although I've edited several Google Docs documents, I believe this is the
>> first one I've created, so please let me know if you have any trouble
>> viewing or editing it, or any other feedback.
>>
>> Love & Liberty,
>>
>>                                      ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>                          RealReform at earthlink.net
>>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>>
>> *I'd actually prefer to patronize a smaller competing provider than
>> reinforce the dominance of Google, so if anyone knows of another online
>> service offering features similar to Google Docs, do share!
>>
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Ken Moellman wrote:
>>
>> 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 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>>
>>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces at hq.lp.org
>>> <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 <(317)%20850-0726> Phone
>>>
>>> 317-582-1773 <(317)%20582-1773> 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 <(402)%20981-6469>
>>>
>>> Home: 402-493-0873 <(402)%20493-0873>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *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 <(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> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <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*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170719/6c6696ff/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list