[Lnc-business] Candidate Support

Tue Oct 17 17:45:51 EDT 2017

I will say as I always have that if we are going to count expenditures then
Region 1 is at the bottom.  Region 1 voted to continue to fund Ohio despite
broken promises (I asked my state Chairs to advise me how they wished me to
vote), and Region 1 has voted for every single ballot access encumbrance.
When I took this position I had a confederation of 9 states that saw little
value coming from the national Party and little reason to promote national
memberships.  Having a RR was just another person to avoid, and I was told
so flatly.  I have turned this region around and I will always fight for
its candidates - and the ones we have funded have been ones that has
weighty factors in their favour.  We are 9 states - the largest region.
And now a region that sees some value.

The strategy of my predecessor was to vote no on all ballot access
encumbrances.  I respect him greatly but disagree.  But part of the reason
for that was that Region 1 was a good chunk of the funding.  I believe
ballot access profits everyone and thus Region 1 - but I was elected to
zealously represent the interests of my 9 states and I have done so.

-Caryn Ann

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 3:36 PM Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 at 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
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*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20171017/57649f9b/attachment-0002.html>