September 2015 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

A short reminder regarding decorum
by Nicholas Sarwark 29 Oct '19

29 Oct '19

Dear All, I expect that members of the Libertarian National Committee will disagree with each other with respect. I expect that after the Libertarian National Committee comes to a decision on an issue, be it the purchase of an office or the choice to make a goal a certain number of candidates running for public office, that every member of the committee will either support the goal or at least stop trying to publicly fight against it after they've lost. I expect that every member of the Libertarian National Committee will be polite and respectful to the rest of the members and to the national office staff. If anyone is unwilling or unable to meet these expectations, I will happily accept your resignation from the Libertarian National Committee and wish you the best of luck in whatever future endeavors you choose. Yours in liberty, Nicholas J. Sarwark Chair, Libertarian National Committee

5 6

goals adopted today
by Alicia Mattson 07 Dec '16

07 Dec '16

I've had two region reps request that I provide copies of the 6 goals the LNC adopted today. They are (in descending order of support level): 1. 1000 candidates in 2016 2. Take action to see that each state has operational affiliate by June 1, 2015 3. 300 candidates by 2016 trained in Who’s Driving 4. Updated issue-based outreach literature this term 5. 38-state party-status ballot access as of Dec 1, 2016 6. 200 elected Libertarian officials in Dec 2016 Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

2 1

Fwd: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN!
by William Redpath 08 Feb '16

08 Feb '16

>From Oliver Hall re: PA ballot access. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William Redpath <wredpath(a)biakelsey.com> Date: Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:00 AM Subject: Fw: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN! To: "wredpath2(a)gmail.com" ------------------------------ *From:* oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org < oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:10 AM *To:* oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *Subject:* Re: CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN! Folks: A couple of updates and comments to follow up on Friday’s big win. First, I’m going to be on WESA 90.5’s Essential Pittsburgh today at noon: http://wesa.fm/programs/905-wesas-essential-pittsburgh; and on WHYY Philadelphia’s Radio Times Thursday at 10 AM: http://whyy.org/cms/radiotimes/. I’m going to press for Sen. Folmer’s Voter Choice Act, as well as another easy legislative fix that would completely eliminate the system of private parties challenging nomination papers under Section 2937. In brief, the Secretary of State should be required to validate nomination papers, instead of private parties. This could be accomplished by changing only one word of existing law. I’m also going to call for the law firms holding the judgments against Carl Romanelli and Ralph Nader to relinquish any claim they have against these candidates. Second, did everyone see all the good press we already got on this? - Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/318520501.html - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2015/07/24/Federal-judge-ru… - AP (this ran nationally): http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Minor-parties-get-court-win-in-ballot-ac… - WHYY (Philly) (this includes a radio spot featuring GPPA’s Carl Romanelli): http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/off-mic/84577-court-pa-unfair-to-3… Finally, regarding Judge Stengel’s decision itself, several questions have been raised about what it means and what happens next. Here is my reading. Section 2911(b) (imposing the 2% signature requirement) and Section 2937 (authorizing private party nomination paper challenges and the imposition of costs against defending candidates) are unconstitutional as applied to minor party and independent candidates (or at least those who are plaintiffs or in privity with the plaintiffs in this case). That means these provisions cannot be enforced against CPPA, GPPA and LPPA, or any of their candidates. Judge Stengel did note that he was not declaring the 2% signature requirement, by itself, unconstitutional. Presumably, therefore, Pennsylvania could enact a new 2% signature requirement, and that probably would be upheld, as it was before in *Rogers v. Corbett*, 468 F. 3d 188 (3rd Cir. 2006). Unless and until that happens, however, the Pennsylvania Election Code is silent about what minor parties and independent candidates must do to gain ballot access. What that should mean is that the Secretary of State should place on the ballot any minor party candidate who demonstrates a “modicum” of support. That standard comes from Supreme Court decisions recognizing that states are permitted to require such a showing. But “modicum” means a small amount. So under current law, CPPA, GPPA and LPPA should be able to place their candidates on the ballot in 2016, provided they each demonstrate some modicum or small amount of support among the electorate. I will follow up with opposing counsel and/or the Secretary of State’s office to ensure that we are in agreement about the effect of Judge Stengel’s decision and procedures for 2016. But I think we can be confident that the system of private party challenges is over – at least insofar as it requires defending candidates to provide their own workers and potentially pay their challengers’ costs. I hope that’s clear. And once again, congratulations to all! Oliver *From:* oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2015 9:45 AM *To:* oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *Subject:* CPPA v. Aichele: WE WIN! Good Morning: Judge Stengel entered the attached opinion this morning. I have not read it except for the part that says, “For the reasons that follow, I find that the statutes are unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs but they are facially valid.” What this means is: WE WIN!!! Judgment entered in our favor on Counts I and II of the complaint. The judge held the challenged statutes unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, but denied our Count III claim that Section 2937 is unconstitutional on its face. (We don’t need to win Count III to get the relief we seek.) Congratulations everyone – this is huge. More later. Regards, Oliver Hall Legal Counsel Center for Competitive Democracy 1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 248-9294 ph. (202) 248-9345 fx. oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *From:* oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *Sent:* Wednesday, November 26, 2014 11:20 AM *To:* oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *Subject:* Re: CPPA v. Aichele: MTD and Opposition Folks: A bit of good news for Thanksgiving: Pennsylvania withdrew its motion to dismiss today. As opposing counsel admitted yesterday on the phone, there was “no way” Judge Stengel could grant it anyway. We have the excellent Third Circuit opinion to thank for that. No we will proceed to summary judgment motions in early 2015, after Pennsylvania files an answer to our Amended Complaint. Happy Thanksgiving! Oliver Hall Legal Counsel Center for Competitive Democracy 1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 248-9294 ph. (202) 248-9345 fx. oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *From:* oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *Sent:* Tuesday, November 04, 2014 7:55 PM *To:* oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org *Subject:* CPPA v. Aichele: MTD and Opposition Greetings, Please see attached the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in *Constitution Party of Pennsylvnia v. Aichele*, and our Opposition to the motion, which was filed on Friday. Now we wait to see how Judge Stengel responds. The Third Circuit provided him with all kinds of helpful guidance, if he will only follow it. Thanks, Oliver Hall Legal Counsel Center for Competitive Democracy 1835 16th Street NW, Suite 5 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 248-9294 ph. (202) 248-9345 fx. oliverhall(a)competitivedemocracy.org

7 11

List of events and dates in 2015
by James Lark 01 Jan '16

01 Jan '16

Dear Wes: I hope all is well with you. In a separate message I shall send you a Word file containing a list of events and dates that may be helpful to you. As with 2014, I have assembled a list of events and dates in 2015 to which the LP may wish to draw attention. For example, it may be useful for LPHQ to issue press releases and/or state affiliates to conduct outreach efforts on or about some of these dates. I have added supplemental information regarding some of these events/dates. Several of the events are included because I know something about them, or because I suspect they will be of special interest to libertarians. Some events and dates are included at the suggestion (or request) of LP colleagues. Allow me to emphasize that the inclusion of an event does not imply that I believe it is particularly important, or that the LP should commemorate it in some manner. Similarly, the fact that an event is not listed does not imply I believe it is not important or that we should not commemorate it in some manner. Please note that while I endeavored to check the accuracy of the listings, in some cases I did so using sources such as Wikipedia. Thus, if you wish to use information on this list, I strongly suggest that you conduct research to ascertain that the information is indeed correct. (Some of the events sent to me by Libertarian colleagues evidently did not occur on the dates provided.) Please note also that I shall send the Word file to the LNC and the State Chairs' list. I hope my LNC colleagues and the state chairs' list subscribers will review the information and offer suggestions concerning additional events and dates (as well as any corrections that should be made). As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Best wishes to you for a great 2015. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee

3 5

11/14-15 Orlando Meeting Info
by Robert Kraus 28 Dec '15

28 Dec '15

All, Here are the full details of the next LNC Meeting in sunny Orlando Florida What: LNC Budget Meeting and Pre-convention Walk-thru When: Sat Nov 14 9 am – 6 pm and Sun Nov 15 9 am - ? Where: The Rosen Centre Resort and Conference Centre 9840 International Dr, Orlando, FL 32819 http://www.rosencentre.com/ Reserve: Via this link: https://bookings.ihotelier.com/Rosen-Centre/bookings.jsp?hotelID=2018 <https://bookings.ihotelier.com/Rosen-Centre/bookings.jsp?hotelID=2018&group…> &groupID=1478441 Or call (407) 996-9840 and ask for LNC Pre-planning Board Meeting (Group ID 1478441) Rate: $95 per night includes full buffet breakfast, complimentary in room wi-fi, complimentary parking, free shuttle w-in 3 mile radius which includes Sea World and Universal Studios. Note – $10 per extra person (so 2 in a room = $105, 3 in a room = $115, etc.) Directions: http://www.rosencentre.com/location-and-transportation/ (note – shuttle doesn’t pick up at airport) Dining: http://www.rosencentre.com/dining-and-recreation/ Other: Pre-convention walk thru currently planned for 5 pm Fri Nov 13th subject to change depending on sales person / conference center availability over weekend. Please keep eye out on our event page for additional details and possible happy hour or other related events: https://www.lp.org/lnc-budget-meeting-1115 Live Free! Robert Robert S. Kraus - Dir of Operations Operations(a)LP.org Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231 Join today: https://www.lp.org/membership LP FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/libertarians

2 1

Follow Up Reading For Your Flights Home
by Brett Bittner 28 Dec '15

28 Dec '15

To follow up on my comments regarding the membership model today, please take a look at this case study regarding a "radical" idea to change how we view membership in the Party: http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/scrapping-synagogue-dues-a-case-study/ **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

5 4

Word files containing reports
by James Lark 09 Nov '15

09 Nov '15

1 1

Various reports
by James Lark 09 Nov '15

09 Nov '15

Dear colleagues: I hope all is well with you. In a separate message I shall send you several Word files containing reports for your consideration. Specifically, I shall send you my Region 5, Campus Organizing, and International Representative reports. In addition, I shall send you the report of the Employment Policy and Compensation Committee in my capacity as EPCC chair. Also, I shall send a report concerning the 2016 Awards Committee in my capacity as chair of the 2014 Awards Committee. I hope you find these reports interesting and informative. As always, thanks for your work for liberty. I look forward to seeing you on Saturday. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society University of Virginia Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee Chair, Employment Policy and Compensation Committee LNC Representative, International Alliance of Libertarian Parties

1 1

Policy Manual provision regarding 2.5% of budgeted revenue
by Wes Benedict 11 Oct '15

11 Oct '15

This email is primarily a notification email to be sure we're in compliance with our Policy Manual rules. The Policy Manual says: > The Executive Director shall notify the LNC of any intention to > undertake any project that > is estimated, on gross, to cost more than 2.5% of budgeted revenue. I'm sending some fundraising letters that mention branding prominently. What exactly you consider "branding" is subject to interpretation. But as you can imagine, with a new logo and other branding, you change graphic design in snail mail, printed items, fundraising letters, business cards, email headers, brochures, t-shirts, stickers, door hangers, website graphics, and much more. Depending on how well fundraising goes, some of the spending will come out of various categories on the Standard Statement of Operations, depending on the area affected, but could include: 32 Fundraising Costs 33 Membership Fundraising Costs 35 Convention 36 Ballot Access Fundraising Exp 37 Building Fundraising Exp (for example a snail mail for the building using new branded letterhead) 40 Administrative Costs 45 Compensation 50 Affiliate Support 55 Brand Dev / Political Materials 58 Campus Outreach 60 Candidate, Campaign & Initiatives 85 Member Communication 88 Outreach I don't consider new polo shirts, minor website changes, new envelopes, etc., to be a single project. In any case, to be prudent, based on some advice from the APRC, I'm notifying the LNC in case depending on how things go and/or how we treat the bookkeeping we go over 2.5% of budgeted revenue. I have no plans to spend more than 2.5% on a project without approval, unless you consider all of the various minor efforts to be a single project, in which case we'll go over that. We're not building a website without LNC or IT Committee approval and don't have specific plans for a new website yet, just to ease any concerns by the IT Committee in case this email gives the wrong impression. Most of our fundraising letters raise around $10k to $30k. If one of the next ones raises upwards in the range of $45k to $90k, we'd be in a great position to initiate a new website with IT Committee and/or LNC approval. I don't think it would be prudent for me to predict one of our next letters will bring in $90k, but if so, we might feel a bit of pressure to move quickly on some of the bigger IT Project challenges. This email is primarily a notification email. I'm not asking for changes in the budget via this email. However, a separate request, perhaps by the Treasurer, may go out to ask for an increase in the branding budget, so we can add some new brochures to LPStore.org as and/or replenish what is already there. For Functional Allocation of Expenses purposes, I think the time spent on this email should be allocated to Admin, although a case could be made for allocating it to Branding or even Fundraising, since it was a fundraising letter that triggered this. 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

3 2

Presidential candidates
by Joshua Katz 07 Oct '15

07 Oct '15

Colleagues, I have been thinking about this for some time, and have decided to present my concern to the LNC for your input. Here is a relevant Policy Manual provision: Party resources shall not be used to provide information or services for any candidate for public office prior to the nomination unless: • such information or services are available and announced on an equal basis to all Libertarians who have declared they are seeking that nomination, • such information or services are generally available and announced to all party members, or • the service or candidate has been approved by the state chair. This leaves open to some interpretation (some would say it leaves a penumbra) a few questions, such as what "declared" means in provision 1. The easiest way to comply with this provision would be to simply not maintain a list of Presidential candidates. However, this may not be practical, since HQ will be asked who our candidates are, and we might as well have a list. I would not be opposed to eliminating the list, but I'm also not necessarily opposed to having one. Nor is it practical to list everyone who says they want our nomination, particularly if we wish to appear credible. A look at the 1175 FEC Form 2 Filers will confirm that no party can list all of its "declared candidates" nor take all, or most, seriously. So, I agree with having objective criteria for being listed as a candidate, if we are to have a list. Here are the 2012 criteria: Filed to run for president with the F.E.C. as a Libertarian Seeking the nomination of the Libertarian Party exclusively Dues-paying member of the National Libertarian Party Campaign website is current with contact information Nothing binds us to observe the past requirements, of course, and I tend to think, unless the LNC acts, the definition of the criteria belong to the Chair or staff. I also don't think the LNC should micromanage those criteria; that is, while I would be fine with the LNC saying not to list candidates, I'd be much less enthusiastic about the LNC trying to write criteria. Here is a statement of the current criteria: The Libertarian Party recognizes 2016 Presidential candidates who have campaign websites, are dues-paying members of the LP, have met all U.S. Constitutional requirements to serve in office as president, and are not running for the nomination of any other political party. They have filed with the FEC, with the exception of Darryl Perry, who has chosen not to file as a protest against the FEC, claiming it lacks constitutional authority. Now, Darryl Perry is listed, as noted above. Not listed is Austin Petersen, who meets all criteria, as far as I know, other than filing FEC Form 2. I believe that such a loose criteria as one that can be paraphrased as "either filed Form 2, or doesn't want to" is, at least arguably, a violation of our Policy Manual requirement to make information or services available equally to all declared candidates. This is, in my opinion, not an objective criterion. Petersen hasn't filed the form - as far as I know, he also hasn't triggered any requirement to do so, and neither has Perry (or, likely, anyone else.) He is certainly as much a declared candidate as anyone else. So hasn't he "chosen not to" file it, at least at the moment, making him as qualified for listing as is Perry? Is there a definition of "chosen not to" that excludes, well, anyone? In summary, I believe we can meet our Policy Manual requirement by having objective criteria and sticking to them (equally available to all can reasonably be seen as "equally available to all who have done certain things.) I believe that, at the moment, either non-objective criteria are being applied, or they are being applied selectively, and either option is, in my opinion, a Policy Manual violation. I cannot make motions, so I am simply bringing this to the LNC's attention. It is not my intent to attack any candidate, or any decision, but rather to ensure that our rules are followed. Thank you for your time and consideration, Joshua A. Katz Region 8 (Region of Badassdom) Alternate Libertarian National Committee Elected Libertarian

7 7