Dear colleagues:
I hope all is well with you. I am writing to mention various items
for your consideration; I hope you find these items worthy of your
attention.
1) I shall vote "no" on the motion to sustain the ruling of the chair
and "yes" on the motion to elect Doug Craig to the at-large position
that became vacant upon Evan McMahon's resignation. In my opinion, the
purchase of a convention package should be regarded as the purchase of a
good or service, not as a donation to the LP. I hope the Bylaws and
Rules Committee will propose language for consideration at the 2016
national convention to amend the Bylaws for the purpose of reducing the
likelihood of disagreement as to what constitutes a donation to the LP.
As an aside, in a recent message Mr. Craig mentioned that he had
spent $5,000 in Georgia (presumably for the Libertarian Party of
Georgia) last year. Allow me to offer my thanks to him for his generosity.
2) As you may know, earlier this month I had the honor of delivering an
address to the European Students For Liberty Conference in Berlin,
Germany. I am pleased to report that the conference was very
successful; I believe the libertarian movement is making great progress
among students in Europe.
Many attendees were very keen to discuss the American political
scene with me. (Conference attendees were aware of my LNC membership
and my service as chairman of the Libertarian Party several years ago.)
It may interest you to know that the vast majority of questions I
received concerned Rand Paul. From what I observed, it appears that
Sen. Paul is regarded by many libertarian-oriented students in Europe as
a U.S. presidential candidate for whom they should root despite his
failings (of which they were aware). The question I received most
frequently concerned whether LP members would vote for Sen. Paul (if he
is the Republican presidential nominee) rather than the LP presidential
candidate.
I mention this as a preface to another observation: in my
interactions with self-identified libertarian student activists in the
U.S., I have seen that many intend to work on behalf of Sen. Paul's
campaign. Most of these students indicated that while they agree to a
much greater extent with Libertarian Party positions, they believe it is
better to work for a candidate who has what they consider to be a
fighting chance of being elected.
3) As you may be aware, June 23 will mark the 10th anniversary of the
Kelo vs City of New London decision by the Supreme Court. I believe
that Libertarian Party organizations should use this date as an
opportunity to draw attention to the issue of takings/eminent domain,
perhaps as part of more general points about government abuse (e.g.,
takings via civil asset forfeiture, "crony capitalism," etc.).
For example, I am already scheduled to conduct at least one radio
interview on June 23 about the Kelo decision. I shall work with my
Libertarian Party of Virginia colleagues to publicize some particularly
ugly examples of "land snatching" in Virginia. I suspect that if LP
organizations mount a campaign about takings/eminent domain on or about
June 23, we shall generate a decent amount of media attention, because I
consider it likely the LP will be the only political party to publicize
the issue.
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. I look forward to
seeing you again in mid July, if not before.
Take care,
Jim
James W. Lark, III
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
University of Virginia
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
