[Lnc-business] Candidate/Campaign Funding
Ken Moellman
lpky at mu-net.org
Wed Jul 19 14:21:06 EDT 2017
My goal would be to see state affiliates up and running and developing
their own mechanisms to support their candidates.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:53 PM, David Demarest <dprattdemarest at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/de2b9daa/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Lnc-business
mailing list