<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>For a few years, some of us have been trying to come up with some minimum conditions that would have to be met in order for the LNC to spend funds on ballot access. Is the affiliate making a reasonable effort, or are they just expecting the LNC to do it all? How much money is being requested relative to the size of the state? Will this get us access for 2 years? 4 years? Will it span a presidential cycle, or only an off-cycle? Is retention likely? Etc. So far the LNC has declined to put in place any such standards, and I don't recall ever seeing the LNC vote down a ballot access funding request.<br><br></div>Given our pitiful financial state, we may find ourselves so very close to 50-state access but just short of funds to get there even though we're starting from our best starting point ever (30-state access).<br><br>We may have to make hard decisions for our limited funds over the next year.<br><br></div>Attached is a spreadsheet I made for my own reference before the EC meeting earlier this week. I used the data in Bill Redpath's most recent ballot access action report plus the 2010 census data to calculate the per-capita cost to the LNC of obtaining ballot access in the 20 states plus DC where we don't yet have it for 2016.<br><br></div>I didn't use cost-per-electoral vote. The electoral vote comparison gets a little skewed on the small states because all states have 2 senators regardless of population. Instead I used the state's population base. Since history doesn't necessarily suggest our candidate will receive any of the electoral votes, it's more about how much exposure we will get by having our candidates on the ballot with a party label. I suppose it would have been a little better to use registered voters, but population figures were more readily available at the time.<br><br></div>The most expensive per-capita cost of the locales left on our to-do list is the District of Columbia at $24.93 per thousand population. Second place goes to South Dakota at $24.56 per thousand, and the LNC has already budgeted for South Dakota this year (though it's on hold pending litigation about the filing deadline). Oklahoma gets third place at $17.33 per thousand with the new lower requirements.<br><br></div>Keep in mind that we just don't know what Ohio's story will be, with all the legal limbo there. It could end up being very expensive.<br><br></div>We need to lean heavily on affiliates to carry their fair share of the weight. Several affiliates with up to 5,000 signatures required are going to be expected to do it all themselves. Then there's New Hampshire, where they need 3,000 signatures, but Bill's report indicates the affiliate isn't likely to do any of it themselves, and the cost per signature will likely be a very high $5, which puts them in 4th place on the most expensive list.<br></div><div><br></div></div>-Alicia<br><div><div><div><div><br><div><div><div><div><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Brett Bittner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brett@brettbittner.com" target="_blank">brett@brettbittner.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Dr. Lieberman, </p>
<p dir="ltr">While I would like to see New York maintain the access we fund via National, yet they are not the issue we are faced with currently. </p>
<p dir="ltr">If you would like to bring New York's access into the discussion, I would be more likely to support the motion for Oklahoma at 1/4th the cost of NY. New York has nearly 4 times the number of electoral votes (27) as Oklahoma. Behind California and Texas, they stand third in terms of electoral votes. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Why not think critically and with electoral ramifications in mind about ballot access? Should we not consider spending donor funds as carefully as our own? </p>
<p dir="ltr">Brett Bittner </p>
<p dir="ltr">**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Jun 19, 2015 12:34 PM, "Scott L." <<a href="mailto:scott73@earthlink.net" target="_blank">scott73@earthlink.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5">
<u></u>
<u></u>
<u></u>
<div link="blue" vlink="blue" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">Mr. Bittner:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">The LNC has voted to
fund ballot access drives in <u></u><u></u>New York<u></u><u></u>
every 2 years for many decades, even though the LPNY has never been able to
retain ballot access after their quadrennial off-year elections.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">All they need is about
1.2% of the vote for Governor, but they have never achieved that
threshold. The layout of the NY ballot makes getting votes a little more
difficult than in other states, but since the Green Party has retained ballot status
at least twice in NY without cross-endorsing the Democrat, retaining ballot
status in NY can be done.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">If the people on this board
think it is OK to keep dumping money into NY every two years for ballot access,
then they should also be in favor of funding the 2015 ballot drive in <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">If we don’t
achieve 50 state ballot status for the 2016 Presidential Nominee, then it doesn’t
really matter if it is 48 or 46 or 44 states. So, if we sacrifice <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>, then we might
as well sacrifice another 6 or 7 states and save a lot more money and/or use
that money for expenses like <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">paying down the mortgage
or for fundraising expenses.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> Scott Lieberman<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center" align="center"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></font></div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">All,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">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 <u></u><u></u>Alexandria<u></u><u></u>
meeting last year any discussion of "50 state ballot access" for our
Presidential nominee in our goal-setting discussion. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">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 <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
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?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">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?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I intend to cast a "no" vote, should Dr. Feldman not vote for
the reasons outlined above.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Brett C. Bittner<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Region 3 Alternate<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Libertarian National Committee<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Sean O'Toole <<a href="mailto:sean@kingfieldcapital.com" target="_blank">sean@kingfieldcapital.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">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 <u></u><u></u>Missouri<u></u><u></u>,
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><font color="black"><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></font></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font color="black" size="2" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:11.55pt"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">I'm concerned about the
proposed <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
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 <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
and be successful in all fifty states,<br>
I'm also trying to be realistic. $65,000 for <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u> 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 <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
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 <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
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 <u></u><u></u>Oklahoma<u></u><u></u>
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 <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br></div></div><span class="">_______________________________________________<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>
<br></span></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">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>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>