<div dir="ltr">All,<div><br></div><div>I believe one of our most important duties as the committee that guides the national party is to ensure ballot access for our Presidential nominee every four years. This motion concerns me, as we would amend the budget to spend more than double its previous size for ballot access in a single state, a state that has historically been VERY difficult to gain access in. I don't recall in our Alexandria meeting last year any discussion of "50 state ballot access" for our Presidential nominee in our goal-setting discussion. </div><div><br></div><div>I believe that we should be on the ballot in as many states as possible, however spending such a large sum on a single state (that has only 7 electoral votes) seems a bit drastic. Shouldn't we focus on getting as many of the easier (and less expensive) states secured before taking on such a large responsibility? Also, what skin does Oklahoma have in the game? Are they raising the $5000 we aren't? Are they providing some sort of support? Or is this a situation where the state affiliate has their hand out without a plan for helping their own activity?</div><div><br></div><div>One of the risks of project-based fundraising is that you are stuck with the funds going to the activity outlined. Otherwise, we may have to return funds to donors or break the law by using the funds elsewhere. If we raise $59k, are we prepared to return $59k to donors and telling them that we couldn't fund their project due to a lack of other support?</div><div><br></div><div>I intend to cast a "no" vote, should Dr. Feldman not vote for the reasons outlined above.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature">Brett C. Bittner</div><div class="gmail_signature"><br></div><div class="gmail_signature">Region 3 Alternate</div><div class="gmail_signature">Libertarian National Committee<br><div><br></div><div><a href="mailto:brett@brettbittner.com" target="_blank">brett@brettbittner.com</a></div><div>404.492.6524</div><div><div><br></div><div>"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Sean O'Toole <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sean@kingfieldcapital.com" target="_blank">sean@kingfieldcapital.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dan:<br>
The way I read the motion, any outflow will need to be matched by earmarked inflow. I realize that this may effect overall fundraising but targeted fundraising such as what will be needed to fulfill the outflow specified in the motion has been, in my experience in Missouri, well received by donors.<br>
<br>
Sean<br>
<br>
Sean O'Toole<br>
<a href="mailto:sean@kingfieldcapital.com" target="_blank">sean@kingfieldcapital.com</a><br>
<a href="tel:%28816%29%20739-2737" value="+18167392737" target="_blank">(816) 739-2737</a><br>
<br>
“It is the job of economists to point out trade-offs; it is the job of politicians and planners to deny that trade-offs exist.”<br>
-William Easterly, 2006<div><div class="h5"><br>
On 19 Jun 2015, at 10:48, Daniel Wiener wrote:<br>
<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
I'm concerned about the proposed Oklahoma petition drive and how it fits<br>
into our overall efforts for ballot access next year. The LNC's finances<br>
are very fragile right now, and we will be facing the usual huge expenses<br>
in 2016 to get our Presidential candidate on the ballot in a number of<br>
different states. We're not starting out with a surplus to draw on, as we<br>
did in 2012. So it will be a big challenge.<br>
<br>
While I'd love to include Oklahoma and be successful in all fifty states,<br>
I'm also trying to be realistic. $65,000 for Oklahoma is a lot of money.<br>
The way this motion is phrased, we'd have to get $60,000 in contributions<br>
dedicated specifically to Oklahoma before proceeding, which is all well and<br>
good. But that seems likely to cannibalize contributions for our other<br>
ballot access efforts.<br>
<br>
Raising money is not a zero-sum game, and different donors may be willing<br>
to contribute to different projects. I can see how "ballot access" will<br>
appeal to some people who aren't interested in the building fund or general<br>
LNC operations or whatever. But will "ballot access" type donors be<br>
interested in Oklahoma in contrast to other states? If there's only a<br>
limited amount of money we can raise for all our ballot access efforts next<br>
year, will the $65,000 for Oklahoma drained from that pool prevent us from<br>
getting on several other states?<br>
<br>
So before I'm willing to vote Yes on this motion, I'll need to hear some<br>
convincing arguments that it won't damage our other ballot access<br>
requirements.<br>
<br>
Dan Wiener<br>
<br>
-- <br></div></div>
*"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we<span class=""><br>
guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we<br>
compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if<br>
this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare<br>
the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or<br>
experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it<br>
disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key<br>
to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it<br>
doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is.<br></span>
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*<span class=""><br>
-- Richard Feynman (<a href="https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps</a>)<br></span>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org" target="_blank">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>