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

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

I favor this method. As it allows for highlighting a candidate, while 
simultaneously alerting readers that the LP platform differs somewhat.

---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
http://www.lpcaucus.org/

On 2018-03-27 15:14, Whitney Bilyeu 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