[Lnc-business] Publishing links to candidate articles with some platform deviations

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Tue Mar 27 15:56:52 EDT 2018


During the Johnson campaign in which there were blatantly off platform and
off principle positions we asked for a disclaimer.  One of them was about
welfare.  It can be done politely.

With such a disclaimer, I have no issue with linking the piece (with a
caveat that we are talking about a deviation or two).  If a candidate goes
way off the rails, they should not be surprised that we don't promote it.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitney.bilyeu at lp.org>
wrote:

>    What if we just ask staff to include in the blog post a disclaimer of
>    sorts with any such link....acknowledging that there may be specific
>    opinions held by the candidate that are not 100% our own...?
>    Whitney
>
>    On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Wes Benedict <[1]wes.benedict at lp.org>
>    wrote:
>
>      Dear LNC:
>      I'm bringing this to your attention now, because it has not been an
>      issue for several months, but likely will come up again soon given
>      that we have lots of candidates and will be writing lots of blog
>      entries about candidates this year.
>      Staff works to publish articles that comply with the LNC Bylaws and
>      Policy Manual. The Advertising Publications and Review Committee is
>      tasked with ensuring publications comply.
>      I'd like to point out that I think Staff and the APRC have had a
>      pretty good working relationship for at least 3 years and perhaps
>      even longer than that if I think about it. So, this is not meant as
>      a complaint in general about the APRC, Staff, or the overall
>      procedures. Most things are fine in that area, in my opinion. I just
>      want to focus on one issue.
>      Nevertheless, it should come as no surprise that various members of
>      the APRC and various staff don't always agree with each other on
>      what constitutes a violation.
>      A particular area of uncertainty has been articles with coverage of
>      candidates where the articles include some positions that violate
>      platform.
>      I'll use public schools as a hypothetical, and the article below
>      from the imaginary "Alexandria Beach Times."
>      ====start article====
>      [Sentence 1] John Doe, Libertarian candidate for Congress, says he
>      wants to cut taxes, cut spending, end the war on drugs, and bring
>      our troops home from overseas.
>      [Sentence 2] When asked about public education, John Doe says "I'd
>      like to use some of the savings from those cuts to increase spending
>      on public schools."
>      ====end article====
>      I think most of the APRC and Staff would feel it's okay to write a
>      blog and to quote Sentence 1 of the article above. Most of the APRC
>      and Staff would probably feel it's NOT okay to quote Sentence 2.
>      The area of likely disagreement is whether or not we could include a
>      link to the source article in our blog entry.
>      If there was an article where 50% or more of the content about the
>      Libertarian candidate had platform violations, probably most of us
>      wouldn't want to publicize it.
>      There can be a great article about one of our candidates where 90%
>      of the coverage is positive, but if 10% of the article includes a
>      platform violation, we maybe should not link to it, or maybe we
>      should.
>      I used public school spending as an example above, but all kinds of
>      things have come up in the past, such as opposing legalization of
>      hard drugs (or letting the states decide on that), the Fair Tax,
>      welfare, some regulations, and so on.
>      I would like direction from the LNC on whether or not it is okay to
>      publish things like blogs that links with some positions that might
>      violate the platform.
>      Based on feedback, I might float a suggest amendment to the Policy
>      Manual for you all to consider at the upcoming LNC meeting.
>      I can work comfortably with whichever direction the LNC might go on
>      this particular issue, but I think it's an important enough issue
>      that has come up quite a bit in the past, that it should be
>      considered by the LNC.
>      If the LNC prefers to leave the decision up to the APRC, that is
>      another option I'm comfortable with. In fact, I think that's the
>      status quo right now, however, given recent changes in the APRC, I
>      could not tell you how they'd rule on the above issue.
>      Thanks,
>      --
>      Wes Benedict, Executive Director
>      Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
>      [2]1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
>      [3](202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [4]wes.benedict at lp.org
>      [5]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
>      Join the Libertarian Party at: [6]http://lp.org/membership
>
> References
>
>    1. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
>    2. https://maps.google.com/?q=1444+Duke+St.,+Alexandria,+VA+
> 22314&entry=gmail&source=g
>    3. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
>    4. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
>    5. http://facebook.com/libertarians
>    6. http://lp.org/membership
>



-- 
-- 
*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 --------------
   During the Johnson campaign in which there were blatantly off platform
   and off principle positions we asked for a disclaimer.  One of them was
   about welfare.  It can be done politely.
   With such a disclaimer, I have no issue with linking the piece (with a
   caveat that we are talking about a deviation or two).  If a candidate
   goes way off the rails, they should not be surprised that we don't
   promote it.

   On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Whitney Bilyeu
   <[1]whitney.bilyeu at lp.org> wrote:

        What if we just ask staff to include in the blog post a
     disclaimer of
        sorts with any such link....acknowledging that there may be
     specific
        opinions held by the candidate that are not 100% our own...?
        Whitney

      On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Wes Benedict
   <[1][2]wes.benedict at lp.org>
      wrote:
        Dear LNC:
        I'm bringing this to your attention now, because it has not been
   an
        issue for several months, but likely will come up again soon given
        that we have lots of candidates and will be writing lots of blog
        entries about candidates this year.
        Staff works to publish articles that comply with the LNC Bylaws
   and
        Policy Manual. The Advertising Publications and Review Committee
   is
        tasked with ensuring publications comply.
        I'd like to point out that I think Staff and the APRC have had a
        pretty good working relationship for at least 3 years and perhaps
        even longer than that if I think about it. So, this is not meant
   as
        a complaint in general about the APRC, Staff, or the overall
        procedures. Most things are fine in that area, in my opinion. I
   just
        want to focus on one issue.
        Nevertheless, it should come as no surprise that various members
   of
        the APRC and various staff don't always agree with each other on
        what constitutes a violation.
        A particular area of uncertainty has been articles with coverage
   of
        candidates where the articles include some positions that violate
        platform.
        I'll use public schools as a hypothetical, and the article below
        from the imaginary "Alexandria Beach Times."
        ====start article====
        [Sentence 1] John Doe, Libertarian candidate for Congress, says he
        wants to cut taxes, cut spending, end the war on drugs, and bring
        our troops home from overseas.
        [Sentence 2] When asked about public education, John Doe says "I'd
        like to use some of the savings from those cuts to increase
   spending
        on public schools."
        ====end article====
        I think most of the APRC and Staff would feel it's okay to write a
        blog and to quote Sentence 1 of the article above. Most of the
   APRC
        and Staff would probably feel it's NOT okay to quote Sentence 2.
        The area of likely disagreement is whether or not we could include
   a
        link to the source article in our blog entry.
        If there was an article where 50% or more of the content about the
        Libertarian candidate had platform violations, probably most of us
        wouldn't want to publicize it.
        There can be a great article about one of our candidates where 90%
        of the coverage is positive, but if 10% of the article includes a
        platform violation, we maybe should not link to it, or maybe we
        should.
        I used public school spending as an example above, but all kinds
   of
        things have come up in the past, such as opposing legalization of
        hard drugs (or letting the states decide on that), the Fair Tax,
        welfare, some regulations, and so on.
        I would like direction from the LNC on whether or not it is okay
   to
        publish things like blogs that links with some positions that
   might
        violate the platform.
        Based on feedback, I might float a suggest amendment to the Policy
        Manual for you all to consider at the upcoming LNC meeting.
        I can work comfortably with whichever direction the LNC might go
   on
        this particular issue, but I think it's an important enough issue
        that has come up quite a bit in the past, that it should be
        considered by the LNC.
        If the LNC prefers to leave the decision up to the APRC, that is
        another option I'm comfortable with. In fact, I think that's the
        status quo right now, however, given recent changes in the APRC, I
        could not tell you how they'd rule on the above issue.
        Thanks,
        --
        Wes Benedict, Executive Director
        Libertarian National Committee, Inc.

          [2]1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314
          [3][3](202) 333-0008 ext. 232, [4][4]wes.benedict at lp.org
          [5][5]facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational
          Join the Libertarian Party at: [6][6]http://lp.org/membership
     References
        1. mailto:[7]wes.benedict at lp.org
        2. [8]https://maps.google.com/?q=1444+Duke+St.,+Alexandria,+VA+
     22314&entry=gmail&source=g
        3. tel:[9](202) 333-0008 ext. 232
        4. mailto:[10]wes.benedict at lp.org
        5. [11]http://facebook.com/libertarians
        6. [12]http://lp.org/membership

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
   - [13]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   Communications Director, [14]Libertarian Party of Colorado
   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

References

   1. mailto:whitney.bilyeu at lp.org
   2. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   3. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
   4. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   5. http://facebook.com/libertarians
   6. http://lp.org/membership
   7. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
   8. https://maps.google.com/?q=1444+Duke+St
   9. tel:(202) 333-0008 ext. 232
  10. mailto:wes.benedict at lp.org
  11. http://facebook.com/libertarians
  12. http://lp.org/membership
  13. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
  14. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list