<div dir="ltr">The Libertarian Party's database of membership and contact information is one of our "crown jewels". It is highly proprietary data which would cause us enormous damage if it were to somehow leak into public view or hostile hands. That's why we have to insist on the use of a bonded third-party mail house, thus shielding it even from our Presidential candidate, to avoid the risk that some campaign staffer or outside contractor might accidentally or intentionally compromise its security.<div><br></div><div>But the same logic applies in reverse. A prominent person seeking our Presidential nomination may start with his own large following, accumulated over many years via business or political or celebrity status. That data constitutes his own "crown jewels", and its security is just as important to him as ours is to us. Why should he entrust it to the LP? If we want to market the LP to his pre-existing list, we should have to go through the same hoops (e.g., bonded third-party mailing house) that we demand when he wants to market to our pre-existing list.</div><div><br></div><div>Hey, if a candidate is willing to gift the LP his pre-existing list, that would be wonderful. But it shouldn't be a contractual condition.</div><div><br></div><div>And yes, we bring ballot status to the table. But the candidate brings his presumed political skills to the table, along with a willingness to campaign full time as our Presidential nominee. That's the more proper comparison.</div><div><br></div><div>It boils down to this: We need to propose a Presidential Agreement which most if not all of the Presidential candidates, along with objective observers, will consider reasonable and fair to both sides, not one which disproportionately skews towards the Libertarian Party. That's the only way that we'll persuade the 2016 candidates to buy into it, and that's the only way that we'll be able to convince the convention delegates to add this requirement to the Bylaws for future elections.</div><div><br></div><div>Dan Wiener</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org" target="_blank">chair@lp.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Yes, a candidate comes to the table with a list that may have been<br>
developed over some period before he/she announced for the LP<br>
nomination. But the LP comes to the table with ballot access earned<br>
over 45 years. We should get the whole list if the candidate gets our<br>
whole list.<br>
<br>
All inquiries about the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate<br>
should be given to the LP for an opportunity to convert them to a LP<br>
member, regardless of whether the inquirer asks specifically about the<br>
LP or not. This should not preclude the candidate from also<br>
responding to the inquiry, or even for there being a day or two<br>
between the candidate's response to the inquiry and the LP's response.<br>
<br>
-Nick<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Daniel Wiener <<a href="mailto:wiener@alum.mit.edu">wiener@alum.mit.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
> After reviewing the proposed Presidential Agreement which Nick sent out<br>
> earlier tonight, I have several suggested edits:<br>
><br>
> 3(c)(ii):<br>
><br>
> Upon signing this Agreement, the Candidates and Campaign Committee shall<br>
> promptly provide to the LNC their "campaign" lists, i.e., their most current<br>
> lists of contributors, inquiries and volunteers and the mailing and e-mail<br>
> addresses and telephone numbers of those persons, and their "media" lists,<br>
> i.e., their most current lists of media contacts and the mailing and e-mail<br>
> addresses and telephone numbers of those persons. This requirement shall<br>
> only apply to names on those lists which were obtained after the Candidates<br>
> announced that they were seeking the LP nomination. The Candidates and<br>
> Campaign Committee shall provide to the LNC promptly as and when they are<br>
> received, and at least weekly, any additions or updates to those lists. The<br>
> Candidates and Campaign Committee intend that these lists shall be added to<br>
> and merged with the lists owned and maintained by the LNC, so that the LNC<br>
> shall have the unrestricted ownership and use of the lists in the future in<br>
> order to advance the interests of the LP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the<br>
> Candidates shall retain a limited license to use those lists following the<br>
> Campaign for their own personal noncommercial use insofar as such use does<br>
> not conflict with Libertarian Party objectives.<br>
><br>
> 3(c)(5):<br>
><br>
> The Candidates and Campaign Committee shall direct all inquiries about the<br>
> Libertarian Party from interested voters, media representatives and others,<br>
> to telephone numbers, mailing and e-mail addresses and persons designated by<br>
> the LNC.<br>
><br>
><br>
> My rationale is that I don't think it's reasonable to demand a Candidate's<br>
> entire list of contacts and supporters, many of which were accumulated long<br>
> before that Candidate sought the LP nomination. But once a Candidate has<br>
> announced a run, all subsequent contact information should be fair game for<br>
> the LP.<br>
><br>
> It's also unreasonable to limit the Candidate's use of such data to<br>
> "personal non-commercial use". Candidates should be able to freely utilize<br>
> all of the data which they themselves collected, unless there is a direct<br>
> conflict with LP objectives (e.g., using that data to help another political<br>
> party or other non-LP candidates).<br>
><br>
> Finally, Candidates and their Campaign Committees should be able to respond<br>
> to inquiries about themselves without having to redirect those inquiries to<br>
> the LP, unless the inquiry is specifically about the LP.<br>
><br>
> Dan Wiener<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <<a href="mailto:chair@lp.org">chair@lp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> As mentioned, the attached contract incorporates almost all of the<br>
>> proposals suggested by Mr. Hall.<br>
>><br>
>> -Nick<br>
>><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>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> "In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess<br>
> it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute<br>
> the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we<br>
> guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the<br>
> computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience,<br>
> compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees<br>
> with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science.<br>
> It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t<br>
> matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it<br>
> disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” --<br>
> Richard Feynman (<a href="https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps</a>)<br>
><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>
<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font size="1"><i>"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.<font size="2"><b> If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science.</b></font> It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”</i> -- Richard Feynman</font> <font size="1">(<a href="https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps" target="_blank">https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps</a>)</font><br></div></div>
</div>