January 2015 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Dec 2014 LP News - front page
by Scott L. 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

I just received the December 2014 issue of LP News. This is our post-election issue. There are 3 stories that are on, or start on, the front page: 1. Best ever midterm LP media coverage 2. Record top-of-ticket votes in midterm, despite poor turnout 3. LP registration up 8.3% over last 7 months, more than all other political parties together There are also 3 1 ½ x 2 inch teasers for articles inside this issue: 4. Another CRUSHING blow for Top Two 5. Best ever LP ballot access after a midterm election! 6. More Libertarians included in 2014 polls than ever! What is missing from the above list? How about the only item that is actually listed in our Bylaws as one of our Purposes: Electing Libertarians to public office. The article that describes our electoral wins only appears as an item in the table of contents on the left side of the front page. That article is on page 11. You might try to argue that some of 1 through 6 indirectly advance some of our Purposes, but this is the post ELECTION issue, so I would like to think that we would feature those candidates who actually achieved the Purposes Statement of our Bylaws. The other items can be worked on anytime of the year, but I am pretty sure the majority of our electoral wins are in November of even numbered years. Although Ms. Howell is the Editor of LP News, I think she is just taking her lead from us, the Libertarian National Committee. I agree that most of the offices that were won are not sexy, but it is possible for the National Party to feature what local, elected Libertarian officials can do in their own communities. Plus, it is easier to move up to higher office if you are elected to a lower level office first. Here in my own county a wealthy semi-libertarian Water Board member who served on the same local water board as Libertarian Brian Holtz got himself elected to the county-wide water board. The reason we dont have many Libertarians who have moved up like this is because moving up usually means graduating from a non-partisan office to a partisan office, or from a very small partisan office to a much larger partisan office. If we are not going to direct our staff to put electing Libertarians as their main goal right after keeping the lights on, then they are not going to focus on helping our affiliates elect Libertarians. And we wonder why our fundraising and membership are down just two years after our second most successful presidential campaign. (1) Scott Lieberman 1. Gary Johnson received the second highest vote percentage of all Libertarian Nominees for President.

1 0

Reason blogs LP SOTU response
by Carla Howell 21 Jan '15

21 Jan '15

Nice review by Brian Doherty: http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/20/libertarian-party-on-obamas-state-of-the Carla Howell Political Director National Libertarian Party 202-333-0008 x 222

1 0

Fwd: Re: [LP.org Query] LPNH Defunct, Chair MIA
by Wes Benedict 20 Jan '15

20 Jan '15

I did not see a notice of a 2014 convention. We don't have one listed here: http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2014-state-conventions and I have not been provided with the announcement of one yet for 2015: http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/2015-state-conventions Some states have conventions every year, while others are every other year or even every four years. I'm not familiar with the practice or requirements in New Hampshire. I'm referring the inquiry below to the LNC. 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 -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [LP.org Query] LPNH Defunct, Chair MIA Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:08:05 -0500 From: Wes Benedict <wes.benedict(a)lp.org> To: Christopher Cantwell <Christopher.Cantwell(a)GMail.com> Mr. Cantwell, I'm not very familiar with the events in New Hampshire. Since the Chair of the LPNH is also the regional representative for New Hampshire on the Libertarian National Committee, I'm forwarding your inquiry to the entire Libertarian National Committee. 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 On 1/18/2015 8:05 PM, Christopher Cantwell wrote: > From: Christopher Cantwell<Christopher.Cantwell(a)GMail.com> > Subject: LPNH Defunct, Chair MIA > > Message Body: > Hi Wes, > > Not sure if my name rings a bell to you or not. I ran for the US House in New York in 2010. I moved to New Hampshire recently and wanted to get involved in the LP here. > > Problem is, there are no meetings. My friend Darryl Perry is the secretary. He says there was supposed to be a convention yesterday, but the chair hasn't been reachable, and never set it up. > > Can you give any advice on what the proper course of action is? I'm told the bylaws have no means by which to remove the chair in his absence. > > I can be reached by phone 631-291-0829 if that works better than email for you. Thanks. > > -- > This e-mail was sent from a contact form on Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/contact) >

2 1

Vermont LP loses high-profile member
by Scott L. 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

Since we are the governing board of the Libertarian Party, I think we all need to understand why our most successful Gubernatorial Nominee in 2014 left our Party to join the GOP. https://vtdigger.org/2015/01/14/libertarian-gubernatorial-candidate-dan-feli ciano-joins-republican-party/ Scott Lieberman

6 6

FW: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York
by Scott L. 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

Since he wants you to see it, I am forwarding the LPNY Chair's e-mail to the rest of you. If the LP of NY was self-funding all of their ballot access drives, then I would agree with the LPNY Chair's comment immediately below. However, since most or all of their ballot access petitions have had substantial financial support from the National LP, then IT IS the LNC's business to make sure that our affiliates are taking the best possible actions to minimize their need for financial support from the National LP for future ballot access drives. Even if the LPNY is successful in somehow stopping this new bill, that will not get them any closer to not needing tens of thousands of dollars of National LP money every 2 years for the foreseeable future. I hope that my fellow LNC members would like to save our National LP members as much money as possible by helping LPNY lobby for a new ballot access bill that requires the NY State election ballot to have separate columns for each party that is on that ballot, and for their vote test to be a more typical 2% or 3% for any statewide office, and that passing the vote test gives 4 years of ballot access (as it currently does in NY). As I have mentioned before, we have 3 LP members who have volunteered to give free advice on lobbying to our affiliates for situations just like this one. Scott Lieberman _____ From: mark axinn [mailto:markaxinn@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:48 AM To: Scott Lieberman Cc: LP-State Chairs; Arvin Vohra; Richard Tomasso; Vicki Kirkland; William Redpath; Josh Katz; Dan Wiener; Alicia Mattson; Tim Hagen; Norm Olsen; Jim Lark; Sam Goldstein; Evan McMahon; Guy McLendon Subject: RE: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York Scott-- Obviously, I disagree with you, as does my membership. Please do not tell us how to run things in New York and I promise not to meddle into the affairs of the California LP. Thank you. Mark Axinn P.S. Since you sent your message to the LNC and I do not have access to that list, I am cc'g those members for whom I do have email addresses. I am sure I am leaving several others out, and of course do so merely because I don't have their addresses. _____ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB From: scott73(a)earthlink.net To: lnc-business(a)lp.org Subject: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:39:27 -0800 "Ballot Access News <http://www.ballot-access.org/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-definition-of-po litical-party-more-restrictive/> : (via IPR) New York Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon) has introduced AB 838. It would alter the definition of "political party" from a group that got 50,000 votes for Governor, to a group that got 100,000 votes for Governor. If passed, it would take effect for elections starting in 2016. Thus, it would remove the Independence, Women's Equality, and Stop Common Core Parties from the ballot." And the Chair of the LPNY commented on IPR: "Mark Axinn <http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-def inition-of-political-party-more-restrictive/#comment-1069415> January 13, 2015 at 7:34 am Obviously, if this bill were ever enacted, it would be a disaster for the Libertarian Party of New York. I urge every New Yorker to contact his/her local Assemblymember and urge him/her to oppose this Draconian restriction." Dear fellow LNC members: I disagree with the Chair of the LPNY. Since the LPNY has failed the current vote test 10 in a row since 1972, this bill would be psychologically annoying, but it would not in any way be a "disaster". The LPNY has never had semi-permanent ballot access, so they would not be losing anything. If I lived in New York, I would be heavily lobbying to add to that bill the requirement that the Elections Department change the ballot layout so that each party on the ballot gets its own column (Row?), and that all statewide offices count for the vote test. And maybe change the vote test from 50,000 votes to 2% or 3% of the vote for Governor. (1% would be nice, but would probably fall on deaf ears). I suspect there are not enough minor party activists who care enough to complain, so directly opposing the bill will, IMO, not work. Scott Lieberman bcc: Mark Axinn, Richard Winger (bcc to protect their e-mail addresses from spammers)

2 1

Re: [Lnc-business] Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York
by Scott L. 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

If the LPNY had its own column (or row) on the ballot, and can use all 3 of the offices Mr. Axinn lists, then 2%, or even 3%, is very achievable. Look at past LP election results in other states on the LP web site. Many, many LP candidates for statewide office get over 3.0% of the vote, whether for that office, or 3% of the vote for Governor. And it is probably possible to make sure US Senate counts, as long as it doesn't screw up the 4 years of ballot access for passing the vote test. Scott Lieberman bcc: Mark Axinn _____ From: mark axinn [mailto:markaxinn@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:31 AM To: Scott Lieberman Subject: RE: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York There were just under 4,000,000 votes cast for Governor/Lt. Gov., Comptroller and Attorney General in the last election. 2% would require us to get 80,000 votes. 3% is 120,000. Much worse than the current situation. Mark _____ From: scott73(a)earthlink.net To: markaxinn(a)hotmail.com Subject: FW: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:33:16 -0800 You can see all of the lnc-business e-mails on the LP web site, but I will make it easier for you by cc'ing you. I forgot to do a blind cc on the original. Scott Lieberman _____ From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Scott L. Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:21 AM To: lnc-business(a)lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] FW: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York Since he wants you to see it, I am forwarding the LPNY Chair's e-mail to the rest of you. If the LP of NY was self-funding all of their ballot access drives, then I would agree with the LPNY Chair's comment immediately below. However, since most or all of their ballot access petitions have had substantial financial support from the National LP, then IT IS the LNC's business to make sure that our affiliates are taking the best possible actions to minimize their need for financial support from the National LP for future ballot access drives. Even if the LPNY is successful in somehow stopping this new bill, that will not get them any closer to not needing tens of thousands of dollars of National LP money every 2 years for the foreseeable future. I hope that my fellow LNC members would like to save our National LP members as much money as possible by helping LPNY lobby for a new ballot access bill that requires the NY State election ballot to have separate columns for each party that is on that ballot, and for their vote test to be a more typical 2% or 3% for any statewide office, and that passing the vote test gives 4 years of ballot access (currently passing the vote test does give 4 years of ballot access in NY, but you have to make sure you don't mess that up when you write a new bill). As I have mentioned before, we have 3 LP members who have successfully lobbied for better ballot access laws who have volunteered to give free advice on lobbying to our affiliates for situations just like this one. Scott Lieberman _____ From: mark axinn [mailto:markaxinn@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:48 AM To: Scott Lieberman Cc: LP-State Chairs; Arvin Vohra; Richard Tomasso; Vicki Kirkland; William Redpath; Josh Katz; Dan Wiener; Alicia Mattson; Tim Hagen; Norm Olsen; Jim Lark; Sam Goldstein; Evan McMahon; Guy McLendon Subject: RE: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York Scott-- Obviously, I disagree with you, as does my membership. Please do not tell us how to run things in New York and I promise not to meddle into the affairs of the California LP. Thank you. Mark Axinn P.S. Since you sent your message to the LNC and I do not have access to that list, I am cc'g those members for whom I do have email addresses. I am sure I am leaving several others out, and of course do so merely because I don't have their addresses. _____ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBB From: scott73(a)earthlink.net To: lnc-business(a)lp.org Subject: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 06:39:27 -0800 "Ballot Access News <http://www.ballot-access.org/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-definition-of-po litical-party-more-restrictive/> : (via IPR) New York Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon) has introduced AB 838. It would alter the definition of "political party" from a group that got 50,000 votes for Governor, to a group that got 100,000 votes for Governor. If passed, it would take effect for elections starting in 2016. Thus, it would remove the Independence, Women's Equality, and Stop Common Core Parties from the ballot." And the Chair of the LPNY commented on IPR: "Mark Axinn <http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-def inition-of-political-party-more-restrictive/#comment-1069415> January 13, 2015 at 7:34 am Obviously, if this bill were ever enacted, it would be a disaster for the Libertarian Party of New York. I urge every New Yorker to contact his/her local Assemblymember and urge him/her to oppose this Draconian restriction." Dear fellow LNC members: I disagree with the Chair of the LPNY. Since the LPNY has failed the current vote test 10 in a row since 1972, this bill would be psychologically annoying, but it would not in any way be a "disaster". The LPNY has never had semi-permanent ballot access, so they would not be losing anything. If I lived in New York, I would be heavily lobbying to add to that bill the requirement that the Elections Department change the ballot layout so that each party on the ballot gets its own column (Row?), and that all statewide offices count for the vote test. And maybe change the vote test from 50,000 votes to 2% or 3% of the vote for Governor. (1% would be nice, but would probably fall on deaf ears). I suspect there are not enough minor party activists who care enough to complain, so directly opposing the bill will, IMO, not work. Scott Lieberman bcc: Mark Axinn, Richard Winger (bcc to protect their e-mail addresses from spammers)

1 0

Fwd: [Statechairs] Some Kansas info and question about LSLA
by Wes Benedict 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

Forwarding to LNC per request. 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 -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Statechairs] Some Kansas info and question about LSLA Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:46:34 -0600 From: Rob Hodgkinson <rob.hodgkinson(a)lpks.org> To: 'LP-State Chairs' <statechairs(a)hq.lp.org> [Statechairs] List of events and dates in 2015 Hi All, We have set the dates for our 2015 State Convention and that will be the weekend of April 17 – 19. In Salina Kansas. Briefly: Friday night (17^th ) we will have a social mixer at a local brew pub Saturday is the training and business sessions which will include elections for all officers in the LPKS (8 total for our Excom). Sunday morning will be a brief meeting for the newly elected officers to get started. For an off election year – should be a fun time for getting some training and motivational stuff in. If any of you will be in the area and want to attend – please let me know as I will want to catch up with you personally. I can post more details as they finalize for us. Also – does the LNC see these emails? If not can the above information and invitation to attend our convention be posted there please! ****** LSLA – has the date, time, location and training subjects been set in stone for the 2015 LSLA? If so I have missed those details and could someone send them to me? I meant to get on the phone call Sunday and the real world got in my way….. **** Thanks for your help! */Rob Hodgkinson/**//* Chair The Libertarian Party of Kansas. *Individual Liberty -- Personal Responsibility * www.LPKS.org */It's a great time to be a Libertarian in Kansas!/* __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 11020 (20150115) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York
by Scott L. 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

Richard Winger sent me the reply below. I am sure he is correct, but we are coming off an election in which the Republicans got ballot status for a fake political party in New York. This might be the first time in a long time that the Republicans have benefitted from one of those fake parties. Since NY State is a Democrat fiefdom at the state level, it is possible that this bill might get traction during this legislative session. I am not forwarding this or the remaining replies that I make to Mr. Winger and Mr. Axinn because they are not on the LNC and it gets messy to involve non-list members in these threads, but feel free to forward this to them if you think it will help. The reason I am bringing this topic up is perhaps LPHQ staff can offer my list of lobbying experts to LPNY, and perhaps someone else can think of something that the LNC can do to help the situation in NY. We have never retained ballot access in NY - if this bill gets traction it would be helpful to have this bill do some good, instead of just making things even more difficult in NY. Scott Lieberman _____ From: Richard Winger [mailto:richardwinger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 7:54 AM To: Scott L.; lnc-business(a)lp.org Subject: Re: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York Assemblyman Gary Pretlow has been introducing this same bill for several sessions in a row, and it has never made any progress. Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147 _____ From: Scott L. <scott73(a)earthlink.net> To: lnc-business(a)lp.org Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 6:39 AM Subject: Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York "Ballot Access News <http://www.ballot-access.org/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-definition-of-po litical-party-more-restrictive/> : (via IPR) New York Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon) has introduced AB 838. It would alter the definition of "political party" from a group that got 50,000 votes for Governor, to a group that got 100,000 votes for Governor. If passed, it would take effect for elections starting in 2016. Thus, it would remove the Independence , Women's Equality, and Stop Common Core Parties from the ballot." And the Chair of the LPNY commented on IPR: "Mark Axinn January 13, 2015 at 7:34 am <http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-def inition-of-political-party-more-restrictive/#comment-1069415> Obviously, if this bill were ever enacted, it would be a disaster for the Libertarian Party of New York. I urge every New Yorker to contact his/her local Assemblymember and urge him/her to oppose this Draconian restriction." GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Dear fellow LNC members: I disagree with the Chair of the LPNY. Since the LPNY has failed the current vote test 10 in a row since 1972, this bill would be psychologically annoying, but it would not in any way be a "disaster". The LPNY has never had semi-permanent ballot access, so they would not be losing anything. If I lived in New York, I would be heavily lobbying to add to that bill the requirement that the Elections Department change the ballot layout so that each party on the ballot gets its own column (Row?), and that all statewide offices count for the vote test. And maybe change the vote test from 50,000 votes to 2% or 3% of the vote for Governor. (1% would be nice, but would probably fall on deaf ears). I suspect there are not enough minor party activists who care enough to complain, so directly opposing the bill will, IMO, not work. Scott Lieberman bcc: Mark Axinn, Richard Winger (bcc to protect their e-mail addresses from spammers)

1 0

Bad ballot access bill proposed in New York
by Scott L. 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

"Ballot <http://www.ballot-access.org/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-definition-of-po litical-party-more-restrictive/> Access News: (via IPR) New York Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon) has introduced AB 838. It would alter the definition of "political party" from a group that got 50,000 votes for Governor, to a group that got 100,000 votes for Governor. If passed, it would take effect for elections starting in 2016. Thus, it would remove the Independence, Women's Equality, and Stop Common Core Parties from the ballot." And the Chair of the LPNY commented on IPR: "Mark Axinn <http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/new-york-bill-to-make-def inition-of-political-party-more-restrictive/#comment-1069415> January 13, 2015 at 7:34 am Obviously, if this bill were ever enacted, it would be a disaster for the Libertarian Party of New York. I urge every New Yorker to contact his/her local Assemblymember and urge him/her to oppose this Draconian restriction." GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Dear fellow LNC members: I disagree with the Chair of the LPNY. Since the LPNY has failed the current vote test 10 in a row since 1972, this bill would be psychologically annoying, but it would not in any way be a "disaster". The LPNY has never had semi-permanent ballot access, so they would not be losing anything. If I lived in New York, I would be heavily lobbying to add to that bill the requirement that the Elections Department change the ballot layout so that each party on the ballot gets its own column (Row?), and that all statewide offices count for the vote test. And maybe change the vote test from 50,000 votes to 2% or 3% of the vote for Governor. (1% would be nice, but would probably fall on deaf ears). I suspect there are not enough minor party activists who care enough to complain, so directly opposing the bill will, IMO, not work. Scott Lieberman bcc: Mark Axinn, Richard Winger (bcc to protect their e-mail addresses from spammers)

1 0

approved minutes from 12/13/14 New Orleans session
by Alicia Mattson 15 Jan '15

15 Jan '15

Attached are the now-approved minutes from the LNC session in New Orleans on December 13-14. Staff, please post these to the website when you get a chance to do so. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

1 0