July 2015 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Change the Rule
by Joshua Katz 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

I had a long car ride today, and happened to hear Ackerman on the radio. I was extremely uncomfortable with what I heard from him. Here is an executive summary: 1. He bases his argument on the notion that, without guaranteed access to the debate early in the season, serious candidates will not enter the race, thus costing Americans options. Perhaps he would meet Gary Johnson, 2 term New Mexico Governor. I strongly dislike promoting this idea that no serious candidates exist. 2. He insists "a third option is needed." See above. 3. There is a large effort to conflate "not R or D" with "centrist" and "independent." The picture that is presented is that of the Republicans on the far right, the Democrats on the far left, and much of the country, since they aren't registered R or D, "in the middle." This is a misleading and damaging approach, in many ways. 4. He argues that having a third candidate in the debate will "force the Republicans on the right and the Democrats on the right to better defend their positions." In other words, he sees a third debater as a way to sharpen the others and promote discussion between them, not a way to, I don't know, win the election. 5. He claims that Trump and Sanders have support because "it's the only way people have to say they're unhappy with the major party options." Besides that fact that both are now major-party options, this is simply untrue. It also seems he's changed his idea for how to choose the third candidate. He wants to run a series of 5 debates among all candidates other than the R and D candidates, and use a poll after each debate to essentially vote candidates "off the island." I chose that phrase because he wants someone involved with Survivor to set it up. He then wants a guarantee that CPD will put the winner of this process into the debate. He restated his staunch opposition to simply putting in those candidates who have 270+ ballot access, and insists on the importance of having only three candidates . This system is better than the absurd signature standard he promoted before, but it remains mind-boggling why he'd oppose a simple, uniform standard, and try to turn a Presidential election into a game show, or, at least, more of a game show than it is already. Even if you think you can only get one more in, why start negotiating at your bottom line? When he gets media attention, all the reporters do is repeat these destructive lies and talk about "should we have a third option for President?" This is a great diversion tactic, and a great way to reinforce the idea that there are only 2 options at present. There was an additional matter discussed that I'd rather not report on in this format. Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

1 0

Ballot Access Committee Report
by William Redpath 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

Dear Colleagues: I look forward to seeing you in Alexandria. Bill Redpath

1 0

new staff members Lauren Daugherty and Andy Burns
by Wes Benedict 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

I'm pleased to announce the two newest members of the Libertarian Party headquarters staff: Lauren Daugherty and Andy Burns. *Lauren Daugherty* joins us from Texas where she previously served as the executive director of the *Libertarian Party of Texas*. Ms. Daugherty earned a Bachelor of Arts in Art History and Economics from Emory University in Atlanta where she served as Chairman of the College Republicans (don't worry--she's a real Libertarian now). She went on to earn a Master of Arts in Statecraft and National Security from the Institute of World Politics in Washington, DC, and a Masters of Arts in Government from Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC. Her impressive resume includes previous work at *FreedomWorks* in Washington, DC, where she executed a rapid expansion of their direct mail program, and the *Leadership Institute*, in Arlington, VA, where she oversaw campus outreach at northeastern schools, managed four field staff, and spoke regularly at training seminars across the country. She served as executive director of the Libertarian Party of Texas from 2013 to 2015. In 2014, LP Texas raised over $145,000, put 132 candidates on ballots across the state, and established branding standards for the organization. Ms. Daugherty will help us with fundraising and membership growth. *Andy Burns* joins us from Minnesota, where he has served as as executive director of the *Libertarian Party of Minnesota*. Mr. Burns earned a Bachelor of Business Administration from the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he majored in Organizational Management and minored in Economics. As executive director for the LP Minnesota, Mr. Burns dramatically raised annual revenues from $5,800 before he was hired to over $45,000. Mr. Burns managed LP Minnesota's 2014 statewide petitioning effort which collected 13,000 signatures for 5 statewide candidates in just 14 days. This is the only time any minor party has accomplished this since 1998. During Mr. Burn's leadership, LP Minnesota also increased their non-partisan elected officials from zero to five and established branding standards for the organization. Mr. Burns will serve as our State Affiliate Development Specialist, in particular to improve the areas of fundraising, database management, and marketing. The addition of Mr. Burns to serve as our new State Affiliate Support Specialist was made possible by the generous contribution of $20,000 dedicated specifically for this position. Finally, I'd like to publicly recognize and thank *Arthur DiBianca* for his work for the Libertarian Party for over ten years in various roles. I first had the opportunity to work with Art significantly in 2004 while volunteering for the LP Texas petition drive that collected over 80,000 signatures. I was serving as the volunteer coordinator for that drive and Art was one of the rare volunteers who would actually go out there with me and collect lots of signatures without getting burnt out too easily. I then asked him to help me validate the signatures. He ended up setting up a database and validated probably over 40,000 (I don't remember exactly). I later hired him to work with me for the LP Texas where we broke fundraising and candidate recruitment records. He managed our database, helped assemble fundraising letters, edited nearly everything I ever wrote (including the book I wrote a few years ago), called people to get them to run for office, helped them fill out their applications, and even helped many candidates get fines reduced or waived for filing late campaign finance reports. His work was so versatile and productive, I just had to hire him to work for the national LP after I started working here myself. Art has worked just part-time for the national LP for the past year and recently decided it was time for him to move on other things. He remains a supporter of the Libertarian Party, I just couldn't convince him to continue making it a professional career. Once again, I'd like to thank Art DiBianca for his more than ten years of service welcome Lauren Daugherty and Andy Burns to the team. -- 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

Chair's Report
by Nicholas Sarwark 15 Jul '15

15 Jul '15

All, Attached is my Chair's Report for the upcoming LNC meeting. -Nick

1 0

Secretary's report for 7/18/15
by Alicia Mattson 14 Jul '15

14 Jul '15

Attached is the Secretary's report for this weekend's LNC session. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Membership trends
by Scott L. 14 Jul '15

14 Jul '15

I am replying on lnc-business because some State Chairs get mad at me when I post opinion e-mails to the State Chairs e-mail list. This is in reply to Mr. Ludlow’s comments that I made red below. I understand the Barack Hussein Obama campaign committees are not political parties, but they are close enough to that definition for government work. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/15/exclusive-obamas-2012-digital-fundrais… “The total number of donors to the campaign also increased in 2012, the adviser said. In all, 4.4 million individuals gave to the Obama re-election bid, up from 3.95 million in 2008.” There is no shortage of people who would donate to the LNC, Inc., to our state affiliates, and to our candidates if we can prove that we can elect our candidates to public office. In other words, most donors want concrete results, as opposed to chest-thumping media releases and social media posts. Advocacy groups measure their results by how much good legislation they can get Republican or Democrat politicians to pass (1), but political parties measure their results by how much good legislation their own elected officials can pass. Scott Lieberman Region 4 Alternate, LNC 1. Or how much bad legislation they can get Republican and Democrat politicians to defeat, obviously. _____ From: Statechairs [mailto:statechairs-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Ludlow Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 12:12 PM To: David Colborne Cc: State Chairs Subject: Re: [Statechairs] Membership trends Brett, For sake of not getting to tangential, I'm going to back this up just a little bit. I started by saying I was trying to formulate a mathematical point specifically as to avoid strategizing blindly. My only real point is that without first examining the general trend of data [the political party membership] across the spectrum, it's impossible to say how the LP is actually doing. I appreciate someone illustrating voter registration, but I would argue that this in itself is still not an Apples to Apples comparison (especially as I think the same voice pointed out that we're actually going better? than the other two parties in his regard). I appreciate that we're selling the "product" of candidates, but David essentially makes my point for me with his soda analogy. If people believe soda is not to be drunk then it's very possible there is nothing you can do to make them buy it. So maybe start selling juice instead (incidentally coca-cola has a massive gatorade-esque and water market now). My desire to break from the analogy of candidates being products is simply that they're all coke if you will. You can change the recipe any which way you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that they're still sugary beverages that people probably shouldn't touch. I'm suggesting that as a mathematical/statistical reality, perhaps (not for sure - I have no idea) people DON'T want to join political parties - period. Perhaps they're not interested in shelling out cash for the empty promise of a political party. Perhaps it has nothing to do with how many changes you make to the soda if people genuinely DON'T want soda. That's not to say the LP should fold any more than the Ds or Rs would - not at all. But it's to first consider that perhaps growth should not be the absolute focal point. ...and I'm making that purely as a data argument, not a philosophical one. The short is that I really don't know. But from the lack of data available, I can conclude that nobody else does either and this presents a problem to me from a strategic POV. -Kevin GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:56 PM, David Colborne <david.colborne(a)lpnevada.org> wrote: Absolutely we're selling a product. That product is libertarian political candidates. Support us and we'll put more product on the shelves. The issue here is a lot of people are starting to view political parties like "soda" (or "pop", depending on the region you're from). There are still plenty of people buying soda (and political party candidates), but most everyone agrees it's unhealthy and we need to drink less of it. So, how do you get people to keep buying soda? Similarly, plenty of people support political parties - Fox News' entire business model is predicated on the idea that there are 'Republicans' and 'Socialists', while MSNBC assumes that there are 'Democrats' and 'Corporatists' - but most people want more direct involvement in the selection of their candidates from 'farm to shelf' than party machine politics have traditionally granted. So, how does the LP capitalize on that, and how can National benefit from that capitalization? That's the open question. What helps keep me engaged, at least, is that I can 'punch above my weight' in the LP. If I tried to join the Republicans or the Democrats, the odds of anything I say or think or so being worth anything to anyone are considerably lower than they are in the LP since there are a lot of old power structures in there that literally have to die out before fresh blood can step in and do anything useful. Additionally, the ideology behind the LP is much closer to my personal ideology than anything offered by the Republican or Democratic parties. I can't imagine I'm the only one that wants to participate in politics without being surrounded by a bunch of old retirees. I could be wrong. GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG On Jul 14, 2015 11:28 AM, "Kevin Ludlow" <ludlow(a)gmail.com> wrote: Brett, Great to hear from you. We spoke rather extensively last year at national. I want to state up front that I'm only approaching this from a mathematical point of view. >You are correct, people are leaving the major political parties which means the LP should be increasing in size dramatically This is a false assumption. There is no evidence I could possibly fathom that would suggest because people are leaving major political parties they would naturally come to the LP. Maybe people hate ALL political parties (they'd have really good reason to IMO). > Lets assume for a moment that everyone is leaving politics, that does not give us an excuse for our membership numbers. If this was a business and people were no longer subscribing to our services, that means we need to work harder and launch new products and services or we would be out of business. This part I agree and disagree with. The fact is that it DOES give us an excuse. If numbers are down across the board then they're down across the board. This is the difference between a product and an ecosystem of products. ...or in our case the entire political apparatus. That said, I DO agree that launching newer products and services is how those companies adapt into the future. Unfortunately I'm not sure that analogy continues to hold much water in the case of a political party because after all, we're NOT selling products. Anyway, I don't have the data so I can't conclude one way or the other. However, if national trends for political party membership is down, then it stands to reason very plainly that ours would be down too. -Kevin GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Brett H. Pojunis <brett(a)pojunis.com> wrote: Hi Kevin, You are correct, people are leaving the major political parties which means the LP should be increasing in size dramatically. Additionally, most states are realizing organic increases in registered voters. The LP should be in a completely different place. Lets assume for a moment that everyone is leaving politics, that does not give us an excuse for our membership numbers. If this was a business and people were no longer subscribing to our services, that means we need to work harder and launch new products and services or we would be out of business. I wouldn't care one bit if the LNC and National office were trying new things but they aren't. All we get is justification for their poor performance. Kevin since you are new I want to make sure that you know I am not sitting here complaining, I have offered to help out many times and it falls on deaf ears. As a full time Chairman in Nevada and someone who cares about the National Party I want to help and I have the time and ability to do so. Brett H. Pojunis Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Nevada The Political Party - Founder 1771 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 201 A Las Vegas, NV 89119 702.763.9301 | Office (direct) 702.325.7426 | Las Vegas Mobile 202.505.3606 | Washington D.C. Mobile brett(a)pojunis.com www.LPNevada.org www.PoliticalPartylv.com GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Kevin Ludlow <ludlow(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm a little new to this thread, but with respect to the original in-line image, has anybody taken the time to compare this again membership trends in the two major parties - or even the Greens for that matter? Every Gallop article I read suggests people are leaving political parties in droves; I believe I read yesterday that 41% of Americans now identify as independents. Without comparing against national trends for ALL political parties, I can't really see how this discussion can exist. We could be exactly inline with US trends or even above them for that matter. Sincere apologies if this has already been done. Thanks much. Kevin Ludlow Region 7 Inline image 1 --

1 0

approved minutes from 6/17/15 EC meeting
by Alicia Mattson 14 Jul '15

14 Jul '15

Attached are the now-approved minutes from the 6/17/15 Executive Committee meeting. Staff, please post to the website when you get a chance to do so. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

1 0

Region 1 Report - Jul 2015
by Norm Olsen 14 Jul '15

14 Jul '15

Attached. Norm -- Norman T Olsen Regional Representative, Region 1 Libertarian National Committee 7931 South Broadway, PMB 102 Littleton, CO 80122-2710 303-263-4995

1 0

UMP-3 could be created and authorized this coming weekend...
by Scott L. 13 Jul '15

13 Jul '15

You have all read the e-mails on the State Chair's e-mail list regarding re-instituting SOME form of the Unified Membership Program. If I have been reading the mail correctly, I **think** it is perfectly legal for the National LP to collect dues money and then send it to FEC filing affiliates. If that is true, then it would only take a moderate amount of programming to have our web site do that. In other words - for people who join the LP, we would add $25 to their shopping cart for the National LP, or more, and simultaneously add either a fixed amount for every state that is FEC Filing, or we could use a look-up table and add whatever amount of money that particular FEC-filing state wanted us to charge for membership. For example, if Rhode Island wanted us to charge $25 for one year, and the applicant wanted to join the National LP for one year, then LP.org site would add those 2 numbers together and charge the applicant $50 for one year of unified membership to the National LP and the LPRI. Obviously these states would not have a way of joining on their web site, other than linking to the National LP's join page. There are a few kinks to be worked out, eg: Life Members, but I don't think the kinks would be anything more than a minor bump in the road to implementing this. Of course, this would also apply to state members who are renewing their state LP memberships. For non-FEC filing states - assuming we get the blessing of our FEC consultant - we could have the applicant join the National LP on LP.org, and then on the confirmation page we would beg them to join their state's LP, and then have a HUGE link that directs the new National member to that state's "join our state LP" page. Unless you have a good objection to the above, I suggest we pass a motion in Virginia this weekend that directs staff to implement the above changes by the end of September. Assuming this is legal, I don't see any down side to doing this. Over the next year, this could add what - several thousand new members to the National LP? And it would likely increase membership for all participating affiliates as well. Needless to say - joining either of the above options would be optional for all state affiliates. Although if the non-FEC filing option is legal, I can't imagine why any state would refuse the chance to direct brand new National members to their join page. Scott Lieberman

1 0

Region 8 Report July 2015
by Rich Tomasso 13 Jul '15

13 Jul '15

Attached is the Region 8 Report for the July LNC meeting.

1 0