November 2014 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Aaron Starr - Oxnard City Council - election results
by Scott L. 18 Nov '14

18 Nov '14

Look at Aaron Starr's post for Nov 16: https://www.facebook.com/AaronStarrforOxnard The actual vote totals are here: http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Ventura/53334/149326/en/summary.h tml Ms. Ramirez is a Hispanic Latina, and Oxnard is 74% Hispanic. And she was an incumbent. Mr. Perello was the other incumbent. Mr. Huber was not an incumbent. But - he had a large amount of name recognition since he was <https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Commanding+Officer&trk=prof-exp-ti tle> Commanding Officer of the nearby <https://www.linkedin.com/company/1325?trk=prof-exp-company-name> Naval Surface Warfare Center from May 2004 - August 2008. Huber received much of his campaign funding from a PAC that was run by the Oxnard public employees union Scott Lieberman

5 5

Employment Policy and Compensation Committee Appointments
by Nicholas Sarwark 15 Nov '14

15 Nov '14

All, I am appointing the following people the Employment Policy and Compensation Committee. I apologize for the delay, it's been a very difficult to choose between five well-qualified applicants for three positions. Brett Bittner, Joshua Katz, and James Lark will be the members of the EPCC for the remainder of this LNC term. Yours in liberty, Nick

1 0

Pagans advising Libertarians?
by Scott L. 14 Nov '14

14 Nov '14

From: Scott Lieberman I admit that a blog for Pagans is one of the last places that I would look at for political advice, but nevertheless: GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGG http://wildhunt.org/2014/06/wiccan-minister-kathryn-jones-to-run-for-office- in-pennsylvania.html Deborah Bender . 5 months ago <http://wildhunt.org/2014/06/wiccan-minister-kathryn-jones-to-run-for-office -in-pennsylvania.html#comment-1449263264> More on the subject of third party candidates. At various times, I've been registered as a voter with three different third parties, though I never was an activist in any of them. In the decades that I've been following the fortunes of these parties, none of them has had any electoral success other than one candidate who was elected to a single term in the state legislature and promptly changed her party affiliation to advance her career (it didn't work). Rarely do their candidates even get enough votes to affect which of the major party candidates wins. In a state with a large and growing number of independent registered voters, third parties ought to be winning elections once in a while. Certainly the deck is stacked against third parties in a non-parliamentary system, but IMHO a greater reason for the dismal failure of these parties to do the most important job of a political party, which is to elect their candidates, is their electoral strategy. Third parties tend to put most of their energy into campaigning for candidates at the top of the state ticket and for national office; these candidates have no chance of winning. Because the party knows they have no chance of winning, they frequently nominate celebrities and party activists who don't have relevant experience or qualifications for the post they are running for. (An exception is third party nominations for the more technocratic statewide offices like controller. These offices are less political and third parties can sometimes find qualified ordinary citizens to run for them.) Because their candidates always lose, all these parties have is a bench of perennial losers. No wonder they aren't taken seriously. In this country the way to build a political party that fields more than protest candidates is to forget about the glamour jobs and make a serious effort to elect 1) candidates for local offices where they can build local support and 2) candidates for state assembly in districts that have historically been safe seats for one of the major parties, which is most of them. Once a candidate has been elected, he or she can climb the ladder in the normal fashion: run for re-election, run for another local post, serve one or two terms in it, build a resume, a track record and a contact list of supporters and allies. Then run for a more powerful office as a credible candidate. <http://disqus.com/Northern_Light_27/> Avatar Northern_Light_27 All I can say is ^^^THIS! I also see the shoot-self-in-foot strategy with third parties and I don't understand it at all. As much as I hate to cite them as an example, people should be paying attention to how the Christian right took over the Republican party-- pretty much exactly the way you stated. Going for the smallest, most local positions and building a turnout machine that produced passionate voters for positions that were otherwise a political afterthought, and then slowly proving the potency of that reliable turnout machine for more and more powerful offices. It isn't quick or easy, but a quick look at the mess we're dealing with in this country as a result of that strategy proves that it really works. It's such an obvious lesson that I don't get why progressive groups have proven so incapable of learning from it. <http://disqus.com/deborahbender/> Avatar Deborah Bender . 5 months ago <http://wildhunt.org/2014/06/wiccan-minister-kathryn-jones-to-run-for-office -in-pennsylvania.html#comment-1450567286> I definitely had the Christian Right in mind. Besides the fact that shoe leather and personableness can beat money in a local election, local elections often have a low turnout and three-quarters of the voters know little or nothing about the candidates. That means that a single issue, point of information or conversation can sway the voter to check off your party's candidate instead of any of the others. When Quentin Kopp was running for an office in San Francisco, I voted for him even though he held more conservative positions than I usually favor, simply because he stood outside my local supermarket and shook my hand, and none of his opponents did. * A small but determined faction of activists can get their people onto a school board running either a stealth campaign or an open one, because the vast majority of voters are uninformed and apathetic. The Christian Right has used this tactic successfully again and again.

2 1

Job posting
by Joshua Katz 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

The ED notes that it will be hard for any one person to fill Eric's role, and even that it would be hard for 2 people to do so. What is the potential to delineate the parts of his job that must be done by full-time staff (I assume managing web resources and the like) and those that can be farmed out, either as the need arises or to a volunteer working committee? Could, perhaps, some amount of editing be farmed out to a working committee for this purpose - not the APRC? I also note that, despite obvious efforts to grow, we maintain a very large 'geek' base. Not all geeks are computer geeks - I am a math geek, more recently a parliamentary geek, but certainly not a computer geek. Many geeks, however, are computer geeks. Is this an opportunity to tap into that potential? It seems that some jobs could be parceled out to those outside the HQ vicinity. Joshua A. Katz Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate Libertarian National Committee Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] LPHQ job posting - Editor & Technology Developer
by Scott L. 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

Exercise for the reader: Are there any lessons to be learned from the e-mail below with respect to the demand that some LP Convention Delegates have made of us that the Libertarian National Committee hold some or all of its sessions remotely via teleconference, rather than in-person? Is the Executive Director unfairly discriminating against potential Editor and Technology Developers who are unable or unwilling to re-locate to the Washington, DC metropolitan area? Scott Lieberman _____ From: Statechairs [mailto:statechairs-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Wes Benedict Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 8:09 AM To: statechairs(a)hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Statechairs] LPHQ job posting - Editor & Technology Developer I've been asked "would we hire someone to work remotely?" We would prefer someone who can work at LPHQ in Alexandria, VA. However, we will consider people who would work remotely, at least for part of the work, and perhaps temporarily. This person needs to collaborate closely with the rest of staff. The Executive Director and Political Director often discuss the look and content of publications including blogs, LP News, the websites, who's doing what, etc. Publications seeking memberships and donations need to be coordinate with operations. We've had people work remotely in recent years. They've done a good job, but the teamwork and collaboration is not the same as being co-located where you can quickly ask others a question, collaborate, and help trouble-shoot things. To emphasize this point, I insisted that both Robert Kraus and Eric Dixon be located upstairs at LPHQ where Carla Howell and I have offices, even though there is more space on the main level and basement. That's because the close proximity for frequent in-person communication was more important than having extra office space for each individual. Obviously there are trade-offs to be considered. So, those wishing to apply that would not re-located should feel free to apply, but all things being equal, we'd prefer someone locally. Wes Benedict, Executive Director

2 1

I am Ashamed
by Joshua Katz 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

I have been listening to the news lately, particularly POTUS on satellite radio. This is something to be ashamed of, to be sure, but is not what I am writing about today. No, I am writing about what I've heard. Before the election, John McCain (!) commented that the American people disliked two things - Democrats, and Republicans. On Election Day, the Republicans swept the election - while receiving entirely unfavorable poll results. Polls showed that a majority do not believe that the Republicans have solutions to our problems. It seems to me that the election was a repudiation, not of Obama, but of the two old parties. Yet, the media still makes statements about "people being angry at both parties." My objection is not to anger, but to 'both.' We have been at this for far too many decades to have had this little impactdon' on national dialogue. We have a situation where two parties that control the nation are failing - yet the people simply swing between them like a pendulum, not considering other alternatives. It's easy to cast blame, or even to give good arguments like rational ignorance. There is a meme circulating with the text "Americans say they need a third party. Why you not vote for the third parties you have?" Instead of insinuating that voters are stupid not to vote for us, maybe we should consider the inverse question - why are we not getting votes? In a period of unprecedented anger at corporations, at big government, at war, at the Fed, at the GOP and the Democrats - we have less than 200 elected officials. The question must be turned inwards - what are we doing wrong when we have a population that either has so disconnected that they no longer vote (in many cases, no longer register) - people who don't worry about 'wasted votes' - or vote for candidates they dislike, yet we do not profit? Please don't bother telling me we're doing great because candidates gathered 1% in some races, carried a county in a statewide race, "spoiled" Republicans or Democrats...we are doing great when we move policy in a libertarian direction by electing Libertarians to office. We are not doing so. This is our shame. We are not inspiring them to action. We are not making ourselves credible enough as an alternative to invoke action from the vast majority who are tired of the options they think they are limited to. We need to present ourselves credibly. We need to demonstrate our ability to govern. We need to elect candidates to offices they actually can win - local offices. We need to allocate resources to candidates who can win, not to symbolism, not to getting the old parties to move to us - they won't - not to demonstrating in our meetings how pure we are. This is our moment, and we need to seize it. We should be winning elections. I am ashamed to be in the leadership of a party that has the answers the public is longing for, groping towards in their anger and disappointment - and yet which is not winning offices. Joshua A. Katz Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate Libertarian National Committee Chair, Libertarian Party of Connecticut

1 0

LPHQ job posting - Editor & Technology Developer
by Wes Benedict 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

Please forward the job description link below to your best people. http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lphq-job-posting-editor-technology-developer Thanks, -- Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314* (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership

1 0

staff member Eric Dixon leaving
by Wes Benedict 13 Nov '14

13 Nov '14

We'll be losing Eric Dixon in early December to another liberty-oriented organization in the DC area. Eric has done a fantastic job, wearing many hats, in a very challenging environment. He will be missed--and hard to replace. Most of the new things I have accomplished over the past year and a half are things I've asked Eric to do, because he could figure out how. That means we'll need more help at LPHQ. Watch for a job description posting I'll send in a separate note in just a few minutes. Eric, thank you for your service to the Libertarian Party. -- Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. *New address: 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314* (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership

1 0

Suing the FEC...again
by Nicholas Sarwark 12 Nov '14

12 Nov '14

All, In a previous LNC term, the LNC sued the Federal Elections Commission to challenge the annual contribution limit to a political party vis a vis a bequest that was larger than the limit. The court found that the issue was moot and unlikely to be repeated. We have received another bequest that exceeds the annual contribution limit, preventing the LNC from taking the entire bequest in a single year. This is the same factual scenario that we previously sued the FEC under, proving them wrong about the unlikely to be repeated part. Our counsel for the last suit, Alan Gura, has offered to sue regarding this bequest. It would be a very limited litigation, since the facts were already hashed out in the last litigation before the D.C. District Court. He would plan to ask the D.C. Circuit to rule on the previous record, perhaps with very brief supplemental briefing to describe the current bequest. Cost would be $5,000/year while the case is pending plus any actual filing fees, etc. I would imagine that the case would be resolved within between 1-2 years of filing. The amount of the bequest is larger than the cost of the suit and if we don't sue, we would have to space the bequest out over a term of years (and potentially do so again the next time someone leaves the LNC money in excess of the annual limit). I intend to submit a mail ballot to authorize this lawsuit sometime later this week, but wanted to see if there were any questions, discussion, or concerns? -Nick

9 14

approved minutes from 10/24/14 EC meeting
by Alicia Mattson 11 Nov '14

11 Nov '14

Attached are the approved minutes from the 10/24/14 Executive Committee meeting. Staff, please post to the website when you get a chance to do so. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

1 0