September 2015 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

Fwd: State Chair and State Affiliate contact sheets
by Wes Benedict 30 Sep '15

30 Sep '15

Please review and forward to the state chairs in your region, then send any updates to me. Thanks, --Wes ============ Updated contact sheets are attached. Please send any changes to me. Sometimes we are asked to add a new phone number, but aren't sure which sheet the new number goes on, and aren't sure whether or not we should remove an existing number. Feel free to use the form below to help us, otherwise give as much explanation as you'd like and we'll try to get it right. It's OK if you want a particular phone number, etc. on both sheets. CONTACT INFORMATION: LP STATE CHAIRS (This is mostly an internal document). info to add: info to remove: replace_______________ with _______________ CONTACT INFORMATION: LP STATE AFFILIATES (This gets snail mailed with inquiry packages, i.e. when someone fills this out http://www.lp.org/request-info. Sometimes the State Affiliate contact info is the same as the State Chair contact info.) info to add: info to remove: replace_______________ with _______________ 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

The Advocates advertise on Google
by Scott L. 28 Sep '15

28 Sep '15

I was searching on Google for some search terms that included the word “libertarian”. Here is the ad I saw at the bottom of the search results: Are You a Libertarian?‎ <http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php> Adwww.theadvocates.org/quiz‎ Take the World's Smallest Political Quiz and find out in minutes. The <https://plus.google.com/111343603503904335780> Advocates for Self-Government has 107 followers on Google+ I have no clue if it is cost-effective for the Libertarian Party to be advertising on Google search results, but I figured it was interesting that The Advocates are doing so. Scott Lieberman

3 2

FW: LAWSUIT CHALLENGING PRES. DEBATES TO BE FILED TUESDAY IN DC
by Guy McLendon 25 Sep '15

25 Sep '15

Finally! From: Our America Initiative [mailto:Media@ouramericainitiative.com] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 9:02 AM To: guy.mclendon(a)lp.org Subject: LAWSUIT CHALLENGING PRES. DEBATES TO BE FILED TUESDAY IN DC <http://static.sendgrid.com/uploads/UID_1312327_NL_3301758_55de8c7ef9db0b89e…> MEDIA ADVISORY Contact: Joe Hunter Media(a)OurAmericaInitiative.com (801) 303-7924 LAWSUIT CHALLENGING COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES TO BE FILED TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, IN WASHINGTON, DC What: On Tuesday, September 29, a lawsuit will be filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia charging that the exclusion of qualified candidates from the general election presidential debates by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) violates federal anti-trust laws. When: 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 29, 2015 Where: United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 400 Constitution Avenue NW, DC. Who: Bruce Fein, attorney representing the plaintiffs, will file the complaint, and will be available for interviews with the media outside the Courthouse. Plaintiffs are: 2012 Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson; Jim Gray, 2012 Libertarian vice-presidential nominee; Jill Stein, 2012 Green Party presidential nominee; Cheri Honkala, 2012 Green Party vice-presidential nominee; the Libertarian National Committee, and the Green Party of the United States. About: The lawsuit challenging the exclusion of candidates from CPD-sponsored debates is backed by the Our America Initiative, a not-for-profit advocacy organization, through the Fair Debates project, https://www.fairdebates.com. Former New Mexico Governor and 2012 presidential candidate Gary Johnson is the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative. Contacts: For more information or to schedule an interview with Mr. Fein, please contact: Joe Hunter Media(a)OurAmericaInitiative.com 801-303-7924 or John Vaught LaBeaume (Local contact in D.C.) (202) 352-8335 JVLaB(a)ElectionDissection.com The OUR America Initiative is a 501(c)(4) political advocacy committee and may receive unlimited donations from both individual and corporate donors. Contributions and gifts to Our America Initiative are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes. To unsubscribe please click <https://u1312327.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/unsubscribe?upn=hRwEw7TY94bJcqGxMNRvDqw…> here Thank you for agreeing to receive information through the internet from Our America Initiative. If you would prefer to not receive information in the future please click the unsubscribe button. Our America Initiative PO Box 1985, Salt Lake City, UT 84114 1-800-662-9601 <https://u1312327.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/open?upn=hRwEw7TY94bJcqGxMNRvDqwxlY0mB2…>

1 0

I am paying for this microphone
by Joshua Katz 25 Sep '15

25 Sep '15

I grew up hearing this famous line quoted often, but never in context (I was born in 1982.) I only recently learned the context, and was shocked by it. For those who are unfamiliar: After Bush won Iowa and New Hampshire, he wanted a 1-1 debate with Reagan. NBC agreed to hold it, and the remaining candidates filed a complaint with the FEC - which ruled that it would be an illegal corporate campaign contribution. So Reagan paid for it himself, planning to, at the last minute, invite the other candidate to participate, forcing Bush to refuse, and hopefully making Bush look bad. When he tried to make the invitation, they refused to let him, and the host said to turn his mic off, which is when he gave his famous line. Imagine that - as recently as 1980, the FEC said limited debates were corporate contributions. How much the FEC has changed since then. Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

1 0

marketing to non-Libertarians versus inspiring insiders
by Wes Benedict 24 Sep '15

24 Sep '15

The Libertarian Party of Texas embarked on a bold experiment to market to non-Libertarians in 2010. They hired a professional marketing firm and spent, I think, well over $100,000 on the effort, mostly paid for by one major donor (hopefully I'm not too far off on the numbers). You can read about it on page 8 of the October 2010 LP News: http://www.lp.org/files/lp_news/2010-4_LP_News.pdf See a video here: http://reformatgov.org/ It may have been great work, but it never seemed to catch on with the LP members from what I could tell. And since the LP members weren't embracing it, the public stopped seeing it. I'd like us to keep this in mind for our future marketing efforts. I hear a lot lately from multiple sources (LNC, state chairs, staff, other members) about how we need to market to non-Libertarian Party members. Yes, we want great marketing that effectively works on non-Libertarians. But, it also has to inspire the existing Libertarian Party membership (or else come with it's own financing), otherwise, the great marketing, like Libby's boots, won't be doing much. -- 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

approved minutes from 9/3/15 EC meeting
by Alicia Mattson 21 Sep '15

21 Sep '15

Attached are the now-approved minutes from the 9/3/15 Executive Committee meeting. Staff, please post to the website when you get a chance to do so. Alicia Mattson LNC Secretary

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] [Statechairs] LNC Affiliate Support Committee - 2015 Poll
by Joshua Katz 18 Sep '15

18 Sep '15

I am replying to all responses in one email, so this is not directed at Mr. Riemers in particular. The LNC absolutely should not be, as was claimed, vetting candidates for our Presidential nomination. In some states, the state board does vet and select candidates, but that is not how the Presidential nomination functions. Our candidates are chosen, as you all know, by the delegates in convention, and the LNC is specifically forbidden from endorsing candidates pre-nomination. You might notice that Wednesday's debate was coordinated by CNN, not the RNC, and certainly was not held at an RNC meeting. People grow very angry if the RNC or DNC seems to be interfering in the primary process, let alone if they were to officially ask candidates to stand before them and debate. One of the things that separates us from those parties is we are careful to avoid this impression, while they flirt with it. If we decide to coordinate a debate with a media outlet, well and good. I would oppose doing so at our business meeting, and I would wish for the LNC to have no role besides setting up the framework, so that we are clearly not favoring one or another candidate. (Note that, in fact, the RNC didn't like the Fox criteria, but had no power to change it. That, I believe, is for the good, regardless of what the criteria were.) States are hosting candidate forums in coordination with their conventions because, at those conventions, they often choose delegates to the National Convention, and, even if not, those who are selected frequently have attended their convention. Therefore, the candidates appear there to make their case to the people who will vote for the nominees. As to whether or not it is obvious that no endorsements will be made, it may be true, but I don't think it is obvious. I think it gives a very strong impression that the LNC will endorse someone - see the email above saying that we should be vetting candidates. As I said - we have a job to do, and, looking at our financial statements, we have some distance to go in doing that job. The budget meeting is perhaps the most important part of doing that job. There is a world of difference between, as was said above, issuing a letter of support to a war-mongering opponent of immigration, and making a decision to focus on our efforts on races we can actually win. A shift of emphasis has nothing in common with supporting the candidate of a different party. Every four years, the nation becomes enchanted by the Presidency. We can follow them and be similarly enchanted, or we can take honest stock of our position and focus on what others have deemphasized. The choice is ours, not mine, but I am sharing my opinion. Clearly others have different opinions, including the chairs of states in my region. Certainly, I will take those opinions into account in any vote that comes to the LNC, as well as my own, but ultimately I am charged with making my decision as a steward for the party's resources while considering the opinions of those I represent. Joshua Katz Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat) On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:56 AM, riemers(a)juno.com <riemers(a)juno.com> wrote: > Well, as far as I know our Saturday evening in Orlando is free, and we > need to start exposing our Presidential candidates to the media and to our > members. So why not some political entertainment from 7 to 9? > > Obviously, this is just an educational debate, and no endorsements would > be made, but it would let us meet the candidates and the candidates could > get some feed back to see if the effort is worthwhile. I suspect we just > "might" get some media coverage on this as well (stranger things do happen). > > Now, if we really will not have any worthwhile Presidential candidates for > 2016, instead of wasting our efforts, maybe we should instead just issue a > letter of support to either Trump or Hillary and not confuse the public any > more then we have to, and just concentrate our efforts on state races? > > Roland Riemers ND > ____________________________________________________________ > No Branches = Great Rates > High Yield CDs & Savings Accounts. 24/7 helpful customer service. > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55fc2650421c726502251st04vuc >

1 0

Fwd: Letter to the LNC from Ian Epstein, Chair, Libertarian Party of Oregon
by Nicholas Sarwark 18 Sep '15

18 Sep '15

All, Attached is an email I received from Ian Epstein. -Nick ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ian Epstein <johannstein(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 5:30 AM Subject: Letter to the LNC from Ian Epstein, Chair, Libertarian Party of Oregon To: Dear Members of the LNC, As you are aware, the national Judicial Committee rescinded it's ruling of 2011. In doing so it reinstated the 2011 resolutions passed by the LNC. My fellow officers and I are proud to be properly recognized as the leadership of LNC's Oregon affiliate. We look forward to once again receiving data dumps, being placed on the State Chair discussion list, and having all references to the LNC's Oregon affiliate be directed to our website (www.lporegon.net) and email addresses (we encourage you to check out our website). We request that you direct the LNC Secretary to notify the Secretary of State of the Judicial Committee's ruling. The previously split decision between the LNC and the Judicial Committee caused the Secretary of State to take no action to update the records as to the legitimate officers. I am optimistic that, as LNC members did in 2011 regardless of their personal opinions, LNC members and Chair Sarwark will abide by the Judicial Committee ruling of 2015 in accordance with our national bylaws. While I have been a registered Libertarian for many years, I became active early this year motivated by a desire to lead the LPO as an organization run by members who have signed a non-aggression pledge. I have no personal animosity against those in the other group. While I believe what they did on March 31, 2011 was unacceptable, I am confident that they thought they were doing the right thing. My goals in the coming year will be to heal the rifts that exist between Libertarians in Oregon, heal the rifts that exist between the LNC and some Oregon Libertarians, and build a culture of principled success here in Oregon. Because I am relatively new to the LPO, have a short track record with it's members, and have animosity toward noone, I believe I am the right person to accomplish these goals. Toward those ends, I promise the following: 1. The LPO will fully and constructively participate in the 2016 Orlando convention. We will seat any Oregon members who show up, regardless of faction, until our allotment of seats is full. All votes within our delegation will be respected, regardless of faction. Once we secure control of Oregon's ballot line, which we believe will happen shortly after the Sec. of State hears about the Judicial Committee ruling from our national Secretary, we will guarantee that whoever is nominated for president and vice-president at the Orlando convention will appear on the Oregon ballot. 2. We will encourage LPO members to join and donate to the LNC in order to strengthen the organization. We will encourage LPO members to attend the 2016 national convention. We will ask national party figures and candidates for national office to visit Oregon so we can find ways to help each other. 3. According to our bylaws, all registered Libertarians in Oregon are already considered "registered members" of the LPO who can vote to nominate candidates for public office or be candidates themselves. We will reach out to as many of these Libertarians as we can to participate in the LPO. We will take a positive tone and will not attempt to cast blame on the other group. You may not be aware that our group has continuously functioned as if nothing was wrong in Oregon. We have held State Committee meetings almost monthly, we have held annual business conventions, have run campaigns for local non-partisan offices (and had one contested victory), have held candidate nominating conventions, have maintained active Facebook and web pages, have sent delegations to our national conventions, and more. We have had success in the Oregon legislature. The LPO actively lobbied for and was recognized by Portland's Cascade Policy Institute and State Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D) as being part of a coalition which worked to pass HB2300 into law. This bill legalized recreational marijuana in Oregon, and our effort was endorsed by Gov. Gary Johnson's Our America Initiative organization. We are also taking point on a ballot measure that would enhance voter privacy by making it illegal for county elections to disclose whether voters have voted or not before Election Day, LPO member Richard Whitehead is the Chief petitioner of the “Voter Privacy Act,” initiative #50, which is getting it's initial 1,000 signatures. My point is that, even against the tremendous headwinds we have faced because of infighting in Oregon, our group has continued to be active as a political party and will be able to offer and accommodate opportunities for involvement to all LPO members regardless of faction. You have my word. I have read about how tired all of you are of dealing with the Oregon problem. I give you my word that I will be a constructive partner in solving it and knitting the Oregon party together again. My only interests are to: 1) Ensure that LPO governing documents are amended only in accordance with amendment processes outlined within those documents and, 2) Ensure that internal party decisions are made exclusively by those who have opted-in to the LPO and subscribe to a NAP - just as is the case with the national party. Beyond that, I am willing to compromise with any and all factions and do what I can to make our national and state parties better and stronger. Thank you. Yours in Liberty, Ian Epstein, State Chair Libertarian Party of Oregon

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] [Statechairs] LNC Affiliate Support Committee - 2015 Poll
by Joshua Katz 18 Sep '15

18 Sep '15

My thought is that the purpose of a board is stewardship of the donor's property and oversight of staff, as well as providing general direction to staff by setting goals and establishing means of accountability. In November, we will have the annual budget meeting. I do not believe it is the purpose of the board to host candidate debates, particularly if doing so will take time away from doing the things that are actually our job. Holding a debate at a board meeting also creates the appearance that the candidates are appearing for the board and attempting to influence the board or gain an endorsement. I do not like the image that would convey. I would add that I want this party to focus on electing candidates to office, which means, at the moment, encouraging a focus on winnable races. I'd like the board to set that tone, not a tone of excessive focus on Presidential politics. In short, I believe that such a debate would be neither real politics, nor the function of a board. Let's focus on those things, and expand beyond them once we have them well in hand. Joshua Katz Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat) On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:46 AM, riemers(a)juno.com <riemers(a)juno.com> wrote: > I have a serious suggestion to make in regards to the 2016 Presidential > race. > > I suggest at the 7 November 2015 LNC meeting in Orlando, that we hold our > own Libertarian presidential candidate debate that Saturday evening. > > At the worse, we can record it and send it out on the web for our own > members, as well as feature it in our next newsletter. It will also > encourage potential candidates to announce and show us their stuff. > > At the best, maybe one or two of the news media will cover it as a news > story, and maybe a really strong candidate will jump into the race. > > I would further suggest, that in order to take part in the debate, the > ONLY requirement would be that the candidate must first get the approval of > at least 5 state chairs as a serious contender. The state chairs can also > approve of more then one candidate. > > I think it would be fun, and be of benefit to the party and our candidates > and get some steam going in our political process. > > Your thoughts and suggestions? > > Roland Riemers ND Chm > ____________________________________________________________ > Want to place your ad here? > Advertise on United Online > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55fb974db589c174d2248st03vuc > > _______________________________________________ > Statechairs mailing list > Statechairs(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/statechairs_hq.lp.org >

1 0

The Judicial Committee decision and how it effects the Libertarian National Committee
by Nicholas Sarwark 17 Sep '15

17 Sep '15

All, I assume that you all have had a chance to read the document forwarded to this list by the Secretary and myself. There are a number of procedural defects in how the Judicial Committee came to meet, whether notice was proper, whether the issue they took up was actually authorized by the Bylaws, whether the explicit enumeration of causes in the Bylaws precludes rescinding a prior decision four years after the fact, etc. Any one or more of those would make the decision we received invalid. If anyone would like to discuss the specifics of those issues, I'm happy to do so. However, I think it's more productive to proceed with the decision we received and leave what to do about the process that allowed it to occur to the delegates in convention in Orlando in 2016. By a vote of 4-2, the current Judicial Committee decided to rescind the decision of the prior Judicial Committee in Wagner v. LNC. Wagner v. LNC reversed decisions of the Executive Committee of the LNC that constructively disaffiliated the Libertarian Party of Oregon without the appropriate vote of the full LNC by recognizing officers and bylaws different from those recognized under state law as the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, which is organized as a political party under the laws of the state of Oregon. For reference, the three Executive Committee motions originally adopted are: "--------------------------Motion 1------------------------ Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee finds that the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon (as amended March 14-15, 2009) are the Bylaws of the Libertarian Party of Oregon, and that these bylaws have been in effect since March 15, 2009. (This motion was adopted by a vote of 6-1.) --------------------------Motion 2------------------------ Based upon the available evidence, the Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee recognizes as the officers of the Libertarian Party of Oregon those people elected by the State Committee during its meeting on May 21, 2011. They are: Chair: Tim Reeves Vice chair: Eric B. Saub Secretary: Carla J. Pealer Treasurer: Gregory Burnett (This motion was adopted by a vote of 6-1.) --------------------------Motion 3------------------------ The Executive Committee of the Libertarian National Committee urges the members of the Libertarian Party of Oregon to work together to resolve their disagreements. (This motion was adopted by a vote of 7-0.)" It is important to understand what a motion to rescind can and cannot do to understand the effect of the Judicial Committee ruling. Under Robert's, motions to rescind cannot undo what has been done. If a body votes to paint a building green, then paints the building green, a subsequent motion to rescind the decision to paint the building green does not unpaint the building, nor does it repaint the building a different color. New action by the body is required to repaint the building. Accordingly, rescinding the decision that reversed the motions of the Executive Committee listed above has the effect of saying that the current Judicial Committee disagrees with the decision of the prior Judicial Committee. It also reinstates the sense of the Executive Committee in 2011 that "based on the available evidence" a certain group of people and a certain set of bylaws were the correct ones for the Libertarian Party of Oregon. However, in the subsequent four years, perhaps in the spirit of "work[ing] together to resolve their disagreements," there has been extensive litigation in Oregon state courts over who controls the Libertarian Party of Oregon, a political party organized and governed by Oregon state law. The result of that litigation has been that the Libertarian Party of Oregon is presently chaired by Lars Hedbor. The rival group, presently chaired by Ian Epstein, has been ordered to act as a Political Action Committee, as there may not be more than one political party referred to as the "Libertarian Party of Oregon." There is an appeal pending, but the decision of the lower court was not stayed on appeal, so the lower court decision stands. The Libertarian Party of Oregon has nominated and run many Libertarian candidates for public office in the last four years, including placing Gary Johnson and Jim Gray on the ballot in 2012 as the Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees, as required by the affiliation agreement between the Libertarian National Committee and the Libertarian Party of Oregon. The LNC affiliates with state Libertarian parties. Some of those parties are allowed or required to organize under state laws, some are not. In Oregon, the LNC is affiliated with the Libertarian Party of Oregon, an Oregon political party. If the members of the Libertarian National Committee feel that the Oregon political party, the Libertarian Party of Oregon, should no longer be our affiliate in the state of Oregon, for whatever reason, a motion to disaffiliate that political party as our state affiliate is in order. Until such time as such a motion is moved and passes, it is my intent as Chair of the Libertarian National Committee to maintain the affiliate agreement with the Oregon political party, the Libertarian Party of Oregon. This would not and will not change should future litigation change who is in control of that political party. Yours in liberty, Nick

4 4