October 2016 - Lnc-business - Moellman Enterprises Email

MOTION: Amicus brief from the LP in support of lawsuit against New York anti-loitering law
by Starchild 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

While libertarianism is making great strides, we know that many politicians and others who sometimes use libertarian rhetoric fall well short of actually embracing public policy in accord with the Non-Aggression Principle, and still support or excuse, among other things, government mistreatment of members of disadvantaged or marginalized groups – immigrants, poor people, Muslims, prostitutes and their clients, people of ethnic minorities, and so on. By doing so, they place themselves squarely against justice and historical progress, and it is crucial to the cause of freedom that we not allow them to tarnish that cause by association and drag it down in the eyes of the public. As reported yesterday by the New York Times (see article below), the Legal Aid Society of New York is filing a constitutional challenge against that state's anti-loitering law, which has been used to harass and arrest thousands of people, disproportionately the poor, transgendered people, and members of minority ethnic groups. This strikes me as an excellent opportunity for us to weigh in with an amicus ("friend of the court") brief, and counter harmful misperceptions spread by opponents of freedom that Libertarians are right there with benighted reactionaries when it comes to attitudes toward the less fortunate among us. Therefore, I move that we direct staff and/or our legal counsel to prepare and file a short amicus brief in support of this lawsuit, citing libertarian principles, and that the action be mentioned in our public communications (e.g. a press release, blogging on LP.org, and/or a write-up in LP News). Don't think of this as a distraction from the election. If the moral clarity of the issue isn't convincing enough by itself, consider it in terms of earned media: This is a timely opportunity to reap some favorable publicity that can help engender goodwill toward our party and candidates that mere outreach and paid advertising can't buy, among communities our message might not otherwise be reaching. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/nyregion/poor-transgender-and-dressed-for… > > Poor, Transgender and Dressed for Arrest > By GINIA BELLAFANTE SEPT. 30, 2016 > > > Measured in terms of cultural attention, it can seem like a very enlightened time to be living with an unconventional gender identity. The rights of transgender people have been a concern of presidential politics; “Transparent,” the comedy about a middle-aged male political scientist in the process of becoming female, is popular and in its third season; gender-neutral bathrooms are on the rise, and opposition to them puts challengers in the position of seeming benighted and cranky, as though they hankered for a world still dominated by three television networks. > > And yet, at 6:30 a.m. on Feb. 3, as she was walking toward a bus stop in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, Natasha Martin, who is 38 and African-American, and had been thrown out of her mother’s home in Virginia as a teenager for preferring to wear girls’ clothes when she was a boy, did not encounter this new collective awakening. She had just lit a cigarette when a white police van pulled up and the officers inside asked her who she was, whether Natasha Martin was her real name and if she was aware that the area where she was standing was known for prostitution. > > Ms. Martin joked at the time that she hadn’t seen any signs, she recalled one recent afternoon. “I said: ‘Who am I supposed to be prostituting to? There is no one here!’” At that point she was taken into custody, under a 40-year-old statute in the state’s penal code — 240.37 — that allows the police broad discretion in arresting anyone they deem to be loitering for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. > > How can this purpose be discerned? The law is vague enough to make almost any posture vulnerable to suspicion. You could be arrested while talking to two men on a corner; while talking to someone through a car window; while walking down the street with a bottle of Korbel; for going to your job selling sofas; if it happens that you have worked as a prostitute before; just for wearing something an officer decides is too provocative. > > On the morning of her arrest, Ms. Martin had set out from a friend’s apartment wearing a Lane Bryant tracksuit. The charges against her were eventually dropped but not before she was made to appear in court five times. > > Over the past several years, the Legal Aid Society of New York has handled so many of these cases of wrongful arrest, particularly among transgender women who are black and Hispanic, that it was expected late last week to file a federal civil rights suit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of several plaintiffs — Ms. Martin is one of them — challenging the constitutionality of the law. Between 2012 and 2015, the Legal Aid Society says, nearly 1,300 people were arrested in New York City under the loitering law. More than 600 were convicted, and close to 240 served some time in jail. During that period, five precincts in the city were responsible for more than two-thirds of the arrests, each of the precincts serving neighborhoods that are predominantly black and Hispanic, in the Bronx and central Brooklyn. > > The deployment of Statute 240.37 is, in essence, a perverse equalizer, extending the indignities of stop-and-frisk policing, experienced by so many young black and Hispanic men, to an entire population of women already facing myriad forms of discrimination. In one instance, the suit notes, over the course of two hours on a June evening last year, officers near Monroe College in the Fordham section of the Bronx arrested at least eight transgender women. The women told their lawyers that one of the officers said they were conducting a sweep to let “girls like them” and their friends know that if they were seen hanging around after midnight they would be hauled off. > > The Police Department declined to comment on the suit until it was filed. > > Some of the neighborhoods where transgender women are being arrested with some regularity — Bushwick, for example, and Hunts Point in the Bronx — are undergoing rapid gentrification, leading to the obvious supposition that the greater mission is to instill enough fear in the women to make them leave, and congregate somewhere else. Ms. Martin had been arrested 14 other times under the loitering statute in the early 2000s, she told me, in most instances while she had been in the meatpacking district, as it was evolving from a place of bohemian and transgressive club life to a world of croque-monsieur and Stella McCartney. > > The policing of female sexuality is something bourgeois women talk about often, with little understanding that what exists largely in the realm of metaphor for them remains, for poor women, a very literal and criminalizing surveillance of how they present themselves when they leave the house. Again and again, the Legal Aid Society has represented women arrested while wearing short dresses or high heels or tight pants and, in one bizarre instance, that well-known symbol of sexual seduction: a black pea coat. Just as it is unthinkable that the same strictures would apply to a black man drinking a tallboy on a sidewalk in East New York and a private equity investor having a glass of pinot noir on his stoop on East 93rd Street, it is inconceivable that a woman in Chelsea would be stopped by the police on her way to Barry’s Bootcamp in cropped leggings and a sports bra. > > The loitering law that has caused so much of this unnecessary contact with the legal system was developed in the 1970s, at a time when vice was rampant in New York City. Over the years, laws almost identical to 240.37 have been found unconstitutional in six other states, including Florida. The continued application of others suggests that certain styles of policing, far from ensuring law and order, merely articulate the ways in which law enforcement seems to function in a vanished world. As police departments across the country try to incorporate more sensitivity and difference awareness training into their curriculums, to heal the ruptures and divisions that have seemed so systemic, they might include a few tutorials on how modern women dress, and what clothes tell us about one another, and don’t. Let the reform begin with a subscription to Vogue.

3 4

Re: [Lnc-business] [Lnc-votes] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority
by Starchild 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

Given our chair's announcement that we have a new operative contract now which is non-secret except for a few provisions whose secrecy will expire in a year (rather than the whole thing being secret in perpetuity), I'll likewise change my vote to no on this motion and withdraw my sponsorship. Nick, I trust there will be no further delay in disclosing the non-secret portions of the contract to those of us who have requested it? Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE On Oct 1, 2016, at 10:39 PM, lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org wrote: > I vote no. > > -Alicia > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > We have an electronic mail ballot. > > Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 3, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. > > Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Hayes, Starchild, Demarest > > Motion: to rescind the authority granted to the Chair to negotiate and execute a campaign contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement and rescind any signatures already executed. > > -Alicia > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-votes mailing list > Lnc-votes(a)hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-votes_hq.lp.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lncvotes" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lncvotes+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

3 2

Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-13: Fellows Resolution
by William Redpath 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

Yes. Bill Redpath -------------------------------------------- On Sun, 10/2/16, Sam Goldstein <goldsteinatlarge(a)gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-13: Fellows Resolution To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Date: Sunday, October 2, 2016, 8:49 AM I vote Yes on Email Ballot 2016-13: Fellows Resolution. Live Free, Sam GoldsteinLibertarian National CommitteeMember at Large8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101Indianapolis IN 46260317-850-0726 Phone317-582-1773 Fax On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 11, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Lark, Goldstein, Harlos, Hagan, Hayes, Starchild Motion: Whereas Mike Fellows was a dedicated and accomplished activist for the cause of liberty who gave generously of his time and financial resources, and Whereas Mr. Fellows represented the Montana Libertarian Party with distinction by virtue of his many campaigns for public office, including campaigns for the Montana state legislature, Montana Secretary of State, Montana Supreme Court Clerk, and the U.S. House of Representatives, and Whereas Mr. Fellows served with distinction for many years in positions of leadership in the Libertarian Party, including his service as chair of the Montana Libertarian Party and as an alternate representative on the Libertarian National Committee, and Whereas Mr. Fellows was a man of integrity, wisdom, wit, generosity of spirit, and commitment to the principles of liberty and personal responsibility, therefore Be it resolved that the members of the Libertarian National Committee express our sadness at the passing of Mike Fellows, and that we offer our condolences to his family and friends. -Alicia ______________________________ _________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/ listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp. org -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

2 1

Email Ballot 2016-09: Mark Miller Contribution
by Alicia Mattson 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 1, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Hayes, Redpath, Bittner, Harlos, Goldstein *Motion:* that the Libertarian National Committee donate directly to the Mark Miller campaign as much as is legally allowable up to $20,000. -Alicia

11 16

Resolution concerning Mike Fellows
by James Lark 02 Oct '16

02 Oct '16

Dear colleagues: I hope all is well with you. I have enclosed below a resolution concerning Mike Fellows, and I request an e-mail ballot to consider its adoption. I hope you find the resolution worthy of your support; if you so find, please cosponsor the motion for an e-mail ballot. As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Take care, Jim James W. Lark, III Advisor, The Liberty Coalition University of Virginia Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee ----- I move the adoption of the following resolution: Whereas Mike Fellows was a dedicated and accomplished activist for the cause of liberty who gave generously of his time and financial resources, and Whereas Mr. Fellows represented the Libertarian Party of Montana with distinction by virtue of his many campaigns for public office, including campaigns for the Montana state legislature, Montana Secretary of State, Montana Supreme Court Clerk, and the U.S. House of Representatives, and Whereas Mr. Fellows served with distinction for many years in positions of leadership in the Libertarian Party, including his service as chair of the Libertarian Party of Montana and as an alternate representative on the Libertarian National Committee, and Whereas Mr. Fellows was a man of integrity, wisdom, wit, generosity of spirit, and commitment to the principles of liberty and personal responsibility, therefore Be it resolved that the members of the Libertarian National Committee express our sadness at the passing of Mike Fellows, and that we offer our condolences to his family and friends.

7 7

Revised contract with Gary Johnson campaign executed
by Nicholas Sarwark 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

Dear All, Today I executed on behalf of the LNC a revised campaign agreement with the Gary Johnson campaign. This agreement is similar in terms to the previously negotiated agreement, but the confidentiality provisions are limited to certain sensitive information that must be kept confidential for a period of one year. Those provisions have been placed into an exhibit separate from the body of the contract; the other contract terms are not confidential based on the terms of the contract, though it is still would be my preference to keep them confidential until after the election. I will email to Robert Kraus a PDF of our copy of the contract and exhibit. The entire agreement is available to LNC members who will keep it in confidence for the one year period required by the terms of the contract. Yours in liberty, Nick

4 3

Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-09: Mark Miller Contribution
by hdigger2004 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

I vote "aye" on motion to give up to 20,000 to Mark Miller. Jeff Hewitt Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson(a)gmail.com> Date: 9/21/2016 12:23 PM (GMT-08:00) To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-09: Mark Miller Contribution We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 1, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Hayes, Redpath, Bittner, Harlos, Goldstein Motion: that the Libertarian National Committee donate directly to the Mark Miller campaign as much as is legally allowable up to $20,000. -Alicia

1 0

Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority
by Daniel Hayes 01 Oct '16

01 Oct '16

I vote No Daniel Hayes LNC At Large member On Sep 25, 2016, at 08:17 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty(a)gmail.com> wrote: Because I thoughtlessly put my vote at the bottom, I will repeat it. I vote no. Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat) On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty(a)gmail.com> wrote: We gave the chair binding authority to negotiate and execute a contract. Negotiation, naturally, is just that. You don't get everything you want because both sides of a negotiation want to get things. Asking someone to negotiate for you is asking them to navigate those trade-offs for you, to make these decisions. I don't think we should have done that. When we were waiting for a contract, I would have supported a rescission - not because I thought the chair was doing a bad job or I was worried about the terms, but because the long wait suggested to me that there was a stalemate, and sometimes you can break a stalemate by putting in a new person. That isn't what we're talking about here, though. Instead, after giving this task to the chair, this is an effort to turn around when the task is done and criticize the priorities chosen and decisions made and say "you could have gotten a better deal without giving anything up." How do we know that? We don't, but we'd be banking on it, because if not, we're not going to get a new deal anytime soon. I find it very aggravating that we pushed this task onto the chair, and now want to say "you should have done it differently." I also see no plan for what will come next here. Do we select a new negotiator? What if the LNC doesn't like what they come back with, either? Surely no one expects this entire body to negotiate a contract, which is not too many cook spoiling the broth - it's 20 cooks trying to flip a pancake. I vote no. Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat) On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Starchild <sfdreamer(a)earthlink.net> wrote: Or just have a contract without the secrecy provision. I don't think the campaign is going to want to spend these four or five weeks resisting having a signed contract because they demand secrecy on a document which, if it isn't signed, they would have no guarantee would not be publicly released anyway. Especially because we've seen no evidence that they are demanding secrecy. It seems quite possible there was just some legal boilerplate text put in or something. Yes, I guess I am saying pass it so that we can see what's in it! :-( Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE On Sep 25, 2016, at 2:15 AM, Aaron Starr wrote: I vote No. If this motion were to be adopted, we will have no contract at all. The campaign is not going to spend the last four or five weeks of this election cycle trying to negotiate a contract with seventeen people. Aaron Starr (805) 583-3308 Home (805) 404-8693 Mobile starrcpa(a)gmail.com From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Mattson Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 11:20 PM To: lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org Subject: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-10: Rescind Contract Authority We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 3, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Hayes, Starchild, Demarest Motion: to rescind the authority granted to the Chair to negotiate and execute a campaign contract and the Joint Fundraising Agreement and rescind any signatures already executed. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

5 4

LNC Chairman statement on Darryl W. Perry
by Nicholas Sarwark 30 Sep '16

30 Sep '16

Dear All, I've received a few inquiries and wanted to release an official statement. Please feel free to share as you see fit. -Nick *** Darryl W. Perry recently announced a write-in campaign for President. Mr. Perry sought the Libertarian nomination for President at the national convention in Orlando, Florida over Memorial Day weekend. He received 6.8% of the delegate votes on the first ballot, and 5.6% of the delegate votes on the second ballot. Governor Gary Johnson was nominated on the second ballot with 55.8% of the delegate votes. The Libertarian National Committee is committed to fully supporting the nominee of the delegates at convention and will continue to do so with all available resources. Mr. Perry remains a life member of the Libertarian Party and was recently elected state chair of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. The LNC has no authority over the election of state party officers nor over the actions of state officers who choose to run rogue write-in campaigns. Nicholas Sarwark Chairman, Libertarian National Commitee

2 1

Fwd: RE: LP Donation to Mark Miller Campaign
by Wes Benedict 30 Sep '16

30 Sep '16

Robert says my recollection is 100% correct -- so now I'm 66.7% certain I remember correctly : ). Aaron Starr's confirmation would make it 100%. Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 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: [Lnc-business] LP Donation to Mark Miller Campaign Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:38:28 -0400 From: Robert Kraus <robert.kraus(a)lp.org> To: 'Wes Benedict' <wes.benedict(a)lp.org>, 'Bob Johnston' <bob.johnston(a)lp.org> Your recollection is 100% correct. Live Free! /*/Robert/*/*/ /* Robert S. Kraus - Dir of Operations Operations(a)LP.org Libertarian National Committee Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231 Join today: https://www.lp.org/membership LP FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/libertarians size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> *From:*Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Wes Benedict *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 12:16 PM *To:* lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org *Cc:* Bob Johnston *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] LP Donation to Mark Miller Campaign Perhaps Aaron Starr remembers, but I'm thinking the issue was that the LNC would have had to file some campaign finance reports with the state of Indiana, and you all decided that Aaron Starr and the LNCC would be willing to handle the burden of that extra campaign finance reporting. I don't think it was an issue of prohibitions on giving directly to Ed Coleman--rather reporting hassles, but again, that's off the top of my head and is about something from over 5 years ago. Wes Benedict, Executive Director Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 333-0008 ext. 232, wes.benedict(a)lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org> facebook.com/libertarians @LPNational Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership On 9/19/2016 12:03 PM, Sam Goldstein wrote: > If memory serves, when the LNC contributed money to Ed Coleman's > campaign for Indianapolis City-County Council, the money had to flow > through the LNCC since Ed want not a federal candidate. I don't think > the LNC can give any money directly to the Miller campaign but it > would be a good question to pose to Paula Edwards. > > Sam > > > Sam Goldstein > > Libertarian National Committee > > Member at Large > > 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 > > Indianapolis IN 46260 > > 317-850-0726 Phone > > 317-582-1773 Fax > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Wes Benedict <wes.benedict(a)lp.org > <mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org>> wrote: > > Bob, if you're researching this, also be sure to check on any timing > issues, in other words are there restrictions or deadlines on when a > committee has to tell the Texas Ethics Commission they plan to spend > money on a candidate for the November 8, 2016 elections. It could vary > whether it's the state party or directly to the candidate, so that > might affect whether giving through LPTexas versus directly to the > candidate. > > Wes Benedict, Executive Director > Libertarian National Committee, Inc. > 1444 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314 > (202) 333-0008 ext. 232 <tel:%28202%29%20333-0008%20ext.%20232>, > wes.benedict(a)lp.org <mailto:wes.benedict@lp.org> > facebook.com/libertarians <http://facebook.com/libertarians> @LPNational > Join the Libertarian Party at: http://lp.org/membership > > On 9/19/2016 11:40 AM, Daniel Hayes wrote: > >> Bob, >> >> Research fast please. It would be good to get this up today. >> >> Daniel Hayes >> >> LNC At Large Member >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> On Sep 19, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Bob Johnston <bob.johnston(a)lp.org >> <mailto:bob.johnston@lp.org>> wrote: >> >>> Daniel, >>> >>> I need to research how much the LNC can donate to a non-federal >>> candidate, and get back to you. >>> >>> My original thought was to donate the funds directly to the LPTX, >>> which is a federal filing party, and have them funnel the funds to >>> the Miller campaign. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:*Daniel Hayes [mailto:danielehayes@icloud.com >>> <mailto:danielehayes@icloud.com>] >>> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 11:30 AM >>> *To:* lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> >>> *Cc:* bob.johnston(a)lp.org <mailto:bob.johnston@lp.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] LP Donation to Mark Miller Campaign >>> >>> Sam, >>> >>> I agree about the time. I wanted to hit send on what I had written >>> already this morning before the hygienist started the cleaning. >>> >>> I started writing this current email in the dentist chair, when he >>> came up and saw my Louisiana Libertarian shirt he said he liked it. >>> He's currently independent but is going to be ReRegistering along >>> with his wife. She apparently is former military and has been >>> donating to the Johnson campaign. >>> >>> But back on topic, before we put a motion out there, how much should >>> we commit? >>> >>> Should we do two separate motions? One to Mark's campaign and one >>> to TX LP with the understanding they donate to his campaign? >>> >>> >>> I have CCed Bob Johnston on here since apparently he and I are >>> psychically linked and both wrote Lauren at almost the same time and >>> he seems to have a better understanding of what we can do in TX than >>> I do. >>> >>> Bob what are the limits that the NLP/LNC could donate to the Mark >>> Miller campaign? >>> >>> Daniel Hayes >>> >>> LNC At Large Member >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Sam Goldstein >>> <goldsteinatlarge(a)gmail.com <mailto:goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>>> Daniel, >>>> >>>> I would co-sponsor a motion for a LNC contribution to Mark Miller's >>>> campaign and/or a targeted contribution to the LPTX in >>>> >>>> his behalf based on the information provided above. >>>> >>>> However, you better write the motion and get it submitted for an >>>> email ballot very quickly as time is running out on this >>>> >>>> election year. >>>> >>>> Live Free, >>>> >>>> >>>> Sam Goldstein >>>> >>>> Libertarian National Committee >>>> >>>> Member at Large >>>> >>>> 8925 N Meridian St, Ste 101 >>>> >>>> Indianapolis IN 46260 >>>> >>>> 317-850-0726 <tel:317-850-0726> Phone >>>> >>>> 317-582-1773 <tel:317-582-1773> Fax >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Daniel Hayes >>>> <danielehayes(a)icloud.com <mailto:danielehayes@icloud.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mr. Chairman and fellow LNC members, >>>> >>>> >>>> We have been asked to make donations recently to certain campaigns. >>>> Despite having more money to do so than in the past, we clearly >>>> don't have the means, time or frankly, even the desire to donate to >>>> every person's campaign that is running as a Libertarian. We need >>>> to develop some criteria to apply to the process to make it as fair >>>> and efficient as we possibly can. I think that there should be >>>> implications of the campaign beyond just electing that one person >>>> to office. >>>> >>>> I intend to bring or support a motion for the NLP/LNC to donate >>>> funds to Mark Miller's campaign for Railroad Commissioner in Texas. >>>> What's at stake is ballot access in Texas. If they do not have a >>>> statewide candidate achieve 5% in this election, they lose their >>>> current ballot access and with the size of Texas, it will likely >>>> cost us multiple 6 figures getting it back. At present Dr. >>>> Miller's campaign is the only one that could be considered more >>>> than a paper candidacy. As we had been having discussions about >>>> which campaigns should the LNC be donating to, it crossed my mind >>>> that Mark Miller's was exactly the sort we should be lending >>>> assistance to. It also occurred to me that we might be hearing a >>>> little less about it than we might because his campaign manager is >>>> also our Special Projects Director, Lauren Daugherty and I know she >>>> works very hard to try and keep those roles separated. >>>> >>>> Making it brief, Mark Miller has raised significant money already, >>>> his campaign stands to benefit the whole TX Affiliate and save it >>>> and the NLP a LOT of money, he is highly qualified for the job, he >>>> has gotten major endorsements. >>>> >>>> With that in mind I reached out to Lauren yesterday. Apparently, >>>> some other people were having some of the same thoughts at the same >>>> time. >>>> Here is Lauren's response to my inquiry. >>>> >>>> " >>>> >>>> Mark Miller is an exceptional candidate. He’s highly qualified for >>>> the position he’s seeking and more qualified (by far) than his 3 >>>> opponents. If he was elected, he would be well prepared to serve. >>>> He’s been a Libertarian since the 1970s and is well versed on >>>> Libertarianism and able to communicate Libertarian ideas well. And, >>>> he’s also a solid leader. He’s well liked, kind, and personable. >>>> Rarely do we find candidates of any party that are so well rounded. >>>> >>>> Mark’s race is the top of the ticket in Texas this cycle. The Texas >>>> Railroad Commission is one of the most powerful agencies in Texas. >>>> It regulates oil and gas and has nothing to do with railroads. In >>>> Texas, oil & gas often trump property rights. It’s messy and >>>> outrageous and will make any normal human being hopping mad if they >>>> look into it. Mark is outspoken about protecting property rights. >>>> >>>> Mark has a PhD from Stanford in petroleum engineering and has spent >>>> over 40 years in the industry. In contrast, none of his opponents >>>> have worked one day in oil & gas. >>>> >>>> For the Libertarian Party of Texas to retain ballot access for >>>> 2018, we need one statewide candidate to achieve 5% of the vote. >>>> This cycle, the only statewide candidates on ballots in Texas are >>>> Railroad Commission (Mark’s race) and judicial races. Almost all of >>>> our judicial candidates this year are “paper candidates”. Mark is >>>> running the most active campaign, by far. >>>> >>>> We started this campaign 1 and a half years ago, when I left >>>> employment with LPTexas. We’ve raised over $70k so far and received >>>> 2 of the biggest media endorsements in Libertarian history. I >>>> expect that we’ll break $100k within the next 2 weeks. Mark is a >>>> full-time candidate. We anticipate that he’ll very likely get more >>>> media endorsements over the coming weeks. He’s talking with >>>> reporters almost daily and traveling extensively. >>>> >>>> We’ve just started robo calls to strategic areas and will have >>>> mailers promoting our endorsements starting in the next few days. >>>> We are planning a major radio buy that will flood the talk radio >>>> airwaves across Texas with Mark’s name and info on his endorsements >>>> and the LP for 2 weeks before early voting begins. This will cost >>>> $50k and we think this is critical to achieving the 5% needed to >>>> ensure ballot access. We’ve raised approximately $30k towards this >>>> so far and we expect to receive the final funding on that within >>>> the next week. >>>> >>>> If we are unable to achieve the 5% needed to secure ballot access, >>>> it will take approximately 80,000 verified signatures to regain >>>> ballot access. I’m told we’d need to shoot for approximately >>>> 125,000 signatures or more to make sure we have enough “good” >>>> signatures. In Texas, if someone votes in a primary, they are not >>>> eligible to sign a ballot access petition and this makes it more >>>> difficult. The signatures would have to be gathered within a 75 day >>>> window. Experts tell me that this would likely cost between >>>> $250,000 and $500,000. >>>> >>>> In my opinion, it is far better to spend money now, promoting an >>>> exceptional candidate, rather than having to scramble to raise even >>>> more money to regain ballot access in 2018 or 2020. I know the >>>> fundraising situation in Texas better than anyone. If we lose >>>> ballot access, it will likely be 2020 before we can afford to >>>> regain it. >>>> >>>> Mark is a candidate that makes us all extra proud to be >>>> Libertarians. He’s highly qualified, and skilled communicator, and >>>> represents us very well. He can walk into a room of people who are >>>> skeptical or even of the Libertarian Party and when he walks out, >>>> they respect us and many support us. >>>> >>>> >>>> Here are our goals for Mark’s campaign: 1) achieve 5% (or far >>>> more!) of the vote in order to retain ballot access for 2018; 2) >>>> grow the Libertarian Party. Mark’s a team player. We are promoting >>>> Libertarians up and down the ballot whenever we can." >>>> >>>> " >>>> >>>> If the LNC donates to Mark’s campaign, we’d use the money on radio >>>> buys, and/or carefully targeted robo calls, and/or large postcard >>>> to strategic areas, educating voters about the endorsements, Mark’s >>>> credentials, and the LP. >>>> >>>> I think the max that the LNC could give Mark’s campaign directly, >>>> by law, is $5k. My understanding, based on what Bob Johnston has >>>> told me, is that if the LNC wanted to give more, they could donate >>>> it to LPTexas (which is currently an FEC filing entity) with the >>>> understanding that LPTexas would then donate the funds to the >>>> campaign. LPTexas receives directed donations regularly and I don’t >>>> foresee any problem with working with them in this way. One SLEC >>>> member said in the SLEC meeting yesterday that “Mark is our shining >>>> star”. SLEC, the officers, and key players, all agree and I think >>>> they’d be delighted to help in this way. >>>> >>>> Folks can read more about Mark here: miller4tx.com >>>> <http://miller4tx.com/>" >>>> >>>> " >>>> >>>> "Thank you for considering supporting his campaign. If anyone would >>>> like to talk with me directly, they can call/text me at 931 249 >>>> 9924 <tel:931%20249%209924> or email me at lauren(a)miller4tx.com >>>> <mailto:lauren@miller4tx.com>" >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here are some links she sent to me also: >>>> >>>> http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-the-RRC… >>>> <http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-the-RRC…> >>>> >>>> http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160915-we-recommend-mark-mil… >>>> <http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160915-we-recommend-mark-mil…> >>>> >>>> Daniel Hayes >>>> LNC At Large Member >>>> >>>> .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> >>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> >>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org> >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org> > > _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing > list Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

7 12