[Lnc-business] Candidate Support

Tue Oct 17 17:35:35 EDT 2017

Are they doing that, at least?

Also, when will the committee be fully populated? We had an application
process, didn't we?

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> In answer to the last question: because the committee we created at our
> last meeting doesn't have the power to deal with these requests.  All we've
> asked it to do is recommend criteria.
>
> Joshua A. Katz
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Erin Adams <erinadams@
> thefeldmanfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I get what Chuck is reaching for and I see some validity in his points. I
>> don't think the fact that "pork" has hit region 1 more strongly is anything
>> other than coincidence however . I have been in support of financially
>> assisting candidates to date and still am but I am leery about continuing
>> to do so in the same manner we have been. Why did we bother to create a
>> damn committee if we were going to continue to act as if we hadn't? Why are
>> we not trying to put our energy and effort into making sure that committee
>> is up and running and dealing with these requests so that we can return our
>> focus to the millions of other issues that need it
>>
>> In Liberty,
>> Erin Adams
>> Director of Fundraising and Events
>> The Feldman Foundation
>> (405) 780-2791
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer at earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Chuck,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your passionate and thought-provoking message, and my
>>> apologies for the delay in responding.
>>>
>>> This is a difficult issue. I've proposed two different solutions now,
>>> admittedly imperfect, but I think an improvement on the status quo – one to
>>> create a multi-committee recommendation system designed to minimize
>>> favoritism and conflict of interest in who gets our support, and another to
>>> decentralize the process by giving the money to the state parties and
>>> letting them make campaign funding decisions via a mechanism to ensure some
>>> funding for any participating affiliate but also requiring some of the
>>> funds to go to out-of-state campaigns seen as the most deserving nationally
>>> – but the LNC did not embrace either of them.
>>>
>>> Instead, we've simply passed the buck to a Candidate Support Committee
>>> to come up with a solution, which does absolutely nothing except put the
>>> onus of coming up with a good solution into a smaller number of hands. That
>>> committee now faces exactly the same problems the LNC has long punted on,
>>> namely how to avoid making campaign funding decisions on an ad hoc basis
>>> and fairly allocate our limited resources to maximum effect in helping
>>> Libertarian candidates and campaigns advance the cause of freedom without
>>> allowing factors like how well a candidate is known by those making the
>>> funding decisions, which state or region s/he is  from, etc., to unfairly
>>> bias those decisions.
>>>
>>> Given this situation, I appreciate you bringing some provocative ideas
>>> to the table. Mind you, I'm not saying I'm convinced that your proposed
>>> solutions are good ones. You draw a sharp distinction between candidates
>>> seeking money from "family, friends, and libertarians all over the
>>> country", and candidates seeking money from the Libertarian National
>>> Committee, characterizing the former as "fundraising" that "showcase(s) the
>>> value proposition" of their campaigns and the latter as mere "rent
>>> seeking", but I'm not sure I see such a sharp distinction there. While I
>>> agree that candidates add some value by raising money from people outside
>>> the freedom movement (non-libertarian friends, family members, co-workers,
>>> etc.), I'm not sure raising money from other (L)ibertarians is doing any
>>> more to "create new wealth" than raising money from the LNC; either way,
>>> it's drawing on movement resources. Either way it boils down to putting
>>> their best feet forward and persuading others to give them money.
>>>
>>> As I see it, the problem with candidates getting money from the LNC
>>> isn't with "rent-seeking" behavior on their end, but the challenge posed by
>>> trying to fairly allocate funds from a central distribution point on our
>>> end. Whether we give out funds directly, or via some appointed committee,
>>> the basic problem of how to avoid doing it on an ad hoc basis subject to
>>> bias remains.
>>>
>>> If we were to follow your advice, abolish the new committee, and simply
>>> vote no on all requests for campaign funding as you suggest, we'd still be
>>> wasting time fielding those requests and casting those votes, and
>>> candidates would still be wasting time making them, because there's always
>>> the chance – even the likelihood, as you acknowledge – that the LNC would
>>> sometimes vote yes. Personally I have zero interest in "bringing home the
>>> bacon" or funding candidates just so that we look like we're doing
>>> something to help candidates even if it's a worse solution overall than
>>> doing nothing, but I fear that I may be the exception to the rule, and
>>> political experience reminds us that even if I have no such tendencies now,
>>> I'm statistically likely to develop them if I remain in the leadership long
>>> enough. Clearly the incentives exist for LNC members to behave as you
>>> suggest we are behaving.
>>>
>>> But even that doesn't seem as bad to me as a central Libertarian Party
>>> body handing out money *without* any accountability to party members either
>>> directly or via the LNC, which is the case with the rogue Libertarian
>>> National Campaign Committee. I don't know that the LNCC's been doing much,
>>> but to the extent they manage to raise money in the name of the party,
>>> there's apparently nothing to stop them from becoming rent-seeking central
>>> without any checks or balances other than being dissolved by the LNC if
>>> they abuse their franchise too badly, or at least that's the impression I'm
>>> given from those who claim to know.
>>>
>>> The audaciousness of your proposed option B – allocating candidate
>>> support funds by randomly rolling dice – is refreshing! However I don't
>>> think it's a good idea. Randomly throwing money out of helicopters* (you
>>> being an economist, I suspect you may have had Milton Friedman's notion in
>>> mind when you came up with that!) might have some merit when the
>>> alternatives are higher government spending or sweetheart deals for big
>>> banks, but fortunately those bad options are not on the table here. It
>>> seems to me that such a dice-rolling approach would encourage many
>>> *more* candidates to submit applications for funding, including those
>>> with very little to recommend their campaigns and scant chances of
>>> receiving LNC funds under the current ad hoc approach, because – why not,
>>> if they'd have exactly the same chances as the most deserving campaigns?
>>>
>>> So I prefer your first option, but am still inclined to hold out for a
>>> better idea. Who knows, maybe the Candidate Support Committee will come up
>>> with one. If they don't, perhaps you can remind us about this again in a
>>> few months!
>>>
>>> Of course there's also your suggestion of highlighting exciting
>>> campaigns and featuring their websites in our communications, but I think
>>> that's more or less already happening, although as with most of the useful
>>> work staff does, more wouldn't hurt (except for the opportunity cost of
>>> diverting time away from the other useful things they do).
>>>
>>> Anyway, thank you as always for being one of the LP members who really
>>> pays attention to the governance of your party even when you are not part
>>> of the party leadership yourself. If the Libertarian Party is to remain
>>> sustainably libertarian, it's vital that we have members with the
>>> dedication to do this. Although you are on the Bylaws Committee... I would
>>> be interested in seeing what Bylaws language you might come up with on this
>>> issue, especially if it did something to create some accountability for the
>>> LNCC or something to devolve candidate and campaign funding to the state
>>> level, although I realize national funding is only part of your objection
>>> to the current approach. I'm just not convinced that candidates doing all
>>> their own fundraising with no help from the party is the best solution we
>>> can come up with.
>>>
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>
>>>                                    ((( starchild )))
>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>                          RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>                                   (415) 625-FREE
>>>                                    @StarchildSF
>>>
>>> *http://www.cityam.com/235253/what-is-helicopter-money-and-could-it-work
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Chuck Moulton wrote:
>>>
>>> LNC members,
>>>
>>> The LNC has been entertaining many requests for campaign contributions
>>> this term.  Most of this pork flows to region 1 -- a trend which appears to
>>> be continuing unabated.
>>>
>>> I am a big advocate of the LP running as many candidates as possible and
>>> focusing on running candidates as our primary mission.  However, in my
>>> opinion candidates are responsible for their own campaigns and they ought
>>> to do their own fundraising.  Any candidate worth his salt can fundraise
>>> money from family, friends, and libertarians all over the country by using
>>> the Internet or a well-written mailer to showcase the value proposition of
>>> his campaign.  Unfortunately, a few candidates want to come to the LNC with
>>> hat in hand instead.  Usually they claim that their campaign is the best
>>> thing since sliced bread and they are going to win their race --
>>> predictions that invariably turn out to be false.
>>>
>>> I believe national money ought to be spent on national things:
>>> presidential ballot access petitioning, ballot access lawsuits,
>>> conventions, and affiliate support that exhibits economies of scale (such
>>> as websites, databases, social media, staff to answer the phones and talk
>>> to media, etc.).  Campaigns do not fall in that category.  It is true that
>>> even campaigns without ballot access implications have benefits
>>> (advertising the LP brand, recruiting new supporters, energizing activists,
>>> etc.); however, those benefits mainly accrue to a local area and are
>>> generic to any candidate; therefore, they do not justify sending money to a
>>> specific candidate instead of another one.
>>>
>>> When candidates seek money from the LNC, it is a textbook example of
>>> rent seeking.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
>>>
>>> Rent seeking wastes enormous amounts of time and money.  The candidates
>>> and their campaign managers waste time and money pitching themselves to the
>>> LNC.  Regional reps waste time and money advocating for candidates in their
>>> region.  The LNC wastes time and money learning about candidates,
>>> evaluating them, and making decisions how to divide up the pie.  None of
>>> these activities grow the pie... they simply redistribute at great cost.
>>>
>>> The LNC has decided to delegate some of its responsibilities to a
>>> candidate support committee -- a decision I believe was very unwise. This
>>> just reallocates some of the wasted time and money from the LNC to the
>>> candidate support committee.  Once the candidate support process is fully
>>> implemented, many more candidates will waste time and money competing for
>>> LNC money and most will return empty-handed.
>>>
>>> The best way to avoid this problem would be to vote no on all funding
>>> requests and dissolve the candidate support committee.  I know that's not
>>> going to happen... even though the candidate support committee is a
>>> terrible idea, the LNC wants to look like it is DOING SOMETHING to help
>>> candidates, and bringing home the bacon for constituents may help win votes
>>> in future LNC elections (e.g., QoP).
>>>
>>> As a second best solution, I suggest the following as a procedure for
>>> the newly created candidate support committee:
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 1) Candidates submit their name, state, political race, and a dollar
>>> amount they request.  No further information is needed or considered (no
>>> long-winded biographies, detailed information about the race, promises of
>>> winning, heartfelt pleas, repeated followups, careful answers to
>>> inquisitions, etc.).  This saves candidates from the costs of rent seeking.
>>>
>>> 2) The candidate support committee allocates money to candidates by some
>>> sort of random number generator -- perhaps by rolling dice.  This saves the
>>> candidate support committee from the costs of rent seeking.
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I am an economist and I hope you will strongly consider my sage advice.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Chuck Moulton
>>> Life Member of the Libertarian Party
>>>
>>> P.S. Nothing prevents staff from mentioning exciting campaigns in weekly
>>> emails and linking to candidate websites.  That is a much better support
>>> procedure than direct funding.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20171017/901ef31a/attachment-0002.html>