February 2018 - 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

Email Ballot 2018-01: Minutes Auto-Approval
by Alicia Mattson 29 May '18

29 May '18

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by January 15, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Mattson, Katz, Starchild, Harlos, Hayes *Motion:* to amend the Policy Manual as follows: 1.02.6 Meeting Minutes […] Meeting minutes for LNC electronic meetings or face-to-face meetings involving travel to a single site may be promoted from draft status to official during the time between LNC meetings as follows: - Draft minutes shall be mailed or emailed to all LNC Members not more than 15 days after each meeting. - Attendees may submit corrections, clarifications and changes to the draft minutes for the Secretary’s consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes.* Corrections, clarifications, and changes to the draft minutes may be submitted for the Secretary's consideration for a period of 15 days following the distribution of the draft minutes.* The Secretary shall distribute an updated version of the draft minutes not later than 7 days following the end of that submission period. […] -Alicia

13 15

April 2018 LNC Meeting Info
by Robert S. Kraus 17 Apr '18

17 Apr '18

Here is the preliminary meeting info for the Meeting Info 04/21-22 LNC Meeting in Denver! Hotel Info: Woolley's Classic Suites @ DIA - 16450 E 40th Cir, Aurora, CO 80011 - http://www.woolleysclassicsuites.com - map & parking info: http://www.woolleysclassicsuites.com/map-directions/ When: Sat Dec 04/21 Time TBD - likely from 9 am – 6 pm & 9 am – 3 pm on Sun the 22th. Meeting room: Monoco Grand Salon. A light lunch will be served on the 21st around 12:15 pm Reservations: Can be made via this link - https://tinyurl.com/LNC0418 - $134 per night. You can also call 720-599-3750 for reservations – ask for rate code #3387963 or Libertarian National Committee Group Meeting Rate. Please note: Rate includes free shuttle from DIA, free made to order hot breakfast, evening cocktail reception & complimentary wifi thru-out. The free shuttle will also take you to the nearby light rail for quick access to down town & also local shops & restaurants. Shuttle pickup info here: http://www.woolleysclassicsuites.com/transportation/ Full list of amenities listed on right side of this page including indoor pool & fitness center: http://www.woolleysclassicsuites.com/services-amenities/ There will also likely be a VIP Event on Fri 04/20 in the evening - details soon! There are also a number of events going on during the day such as this one: https://www.denver420rally.org/ -- Robert S. Kraus - Operations Director Operations(a)LP.org Libertarian National Committee, Inc. 1444 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Ph: 202.333.0008 x 231

6 16

roll call for this email list
by Alicia Mattson 14 Apr '18

14 Apr '18

We have recently made a major change in how this email list works, with everyone given mailboxes instead of forwarders, and changing the list so that we must now send from those mailboxes rather than from our personal email addresses. It is not a given that everyone has successfully made the transition, so I'm asking for all LNC members/alternates to reply to this message to verify who has or hasn't figured out the new configuration. If someone isn't receiving, they may just think the list has no traffic, and might not know to contact someone about a problem. If they haven't tried to send yet, they may not know yet if there's a problem. Some may need technical assistance figuring out what they need to do. Who is here and functioning with the new setup? *Caryn Ann*: You seem to be attempting to email this list by sending to the email address "lnc-business-bounces(a)hq.lp.org". That does not result in a post to this list. That's an address that's used by an email service provider to notify the list that a message is undeliverable. You need to be using the email address "lnc-business(a)hq.lp.org" instead. -Alicia

16 24

Email Ballot 2018-04: Appoint Adams to CSC
by Alicia Mattson 05 Mar '18

05 Mar '18

We have an electronic mail ballot. *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by March 7, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Goldstein, Van Horn, Demarest, Bilyeu, Hagan, Harlos, Hayes *Motion:* to appoint Erin Adams to fill the vacant LNC member position on the Candidate Support Committee -Alicia We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by March 7, 2018 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Goldstein, Van Horn, Demarest, Bilyeu, Hagan, Harlos, Hayes Motion: to appoint Erin Adams to fill the vacant LNC member position on the Candidate Support Committee -Alicia

12 11

Have there been any updates to the conflicts of interest since the December meeting?
by Caryn Ann Harlos 02 Mar '18

02 Mar '18

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft*

4 6

Setting the record straight on another issue
by Caryn Ann Harlos 28 Feb '18

28 Feb '18

First, once again, I am going to say that amongst very responsible genuine concerns discussed recently, there have been overlays of innuendo and insinuation that are the things we should expect from the old parties. Not us. Perhaps I should be thankful since apparently all I care about is "profile building" and the recent events have people who normally are not typically my usual allies have got in touch to express astonishment and support. But to my point- In another email, the fact the LPRC had requested use of the LP's Adobe account was mentioned. And then spun off into an exposition of how it was unprincipled even if they were allowed and how another particular caucus would have refused (unlike the LPRC apparently). *Can we stop this? Please. Let me set that record straight and I challenge anyone to make an argument with a straight face that this was unprincipled. HERE IS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST:* *==Wes, would the LP consider renting the use of its Adobe Connect room ( if it is an account that allows up to 100 participants) for a donation?* *The LP Radical Caucus needs an afternoon for a member meeting and Adobe only licensing by the year for the larger room. I understand their yearly fee is $500- we would be willing to donate $100 for the one day use.==* *THE LPRC OFFERED TO PAY FOR IT.* 20% of the total cost for ONE DAY OF USE. And if this COULD BE OPENED UP TO OTHER GROUPS the Party could cover its expenses. Wow, that casts it in another light doesn't it. *As the Proverb says, one man seems right until another presents his case.* *Nobody volunteers for this job to have their principles impugned.* I certainly don't, and I CERTAINLY DON'T APPRECIATE OR DESERVE IT. So stop. This isn't what the Libertarian Party is all about. And if but for the requirement that Ms. Mattson must administer all meetings, I stand by the idea that if the LP could get its costs covered, or even get additional funds, that is not only not unprincipled, it is SMART. Wes at first expressed reservations and said he would speak with Nick. I said cool. Then, I said this in response to the information that only one person knew how to run it and it could be clunky: *==I will do some test runs to learn it and see. It is probably a good idea to have someone else who also knows it in the event of an LNC need. It might not be a bad idea to have someone familiar in case Jess or anyone ever wants to try having an interactive member presentation like we do with the conference calls. There might be some potential here since we have the license already. And I love playing with this stuff. I have done some Adobe training.* *I am doing some test runs of some new products (like zoom.us <http://zoom.us/>) and having a good comparison might good as well in there is a better more cost effective solution for the LNC to consider in the future (though yes I know Adobe Connect is in the Policy Manual). ==* Oh... so I wanted to do research to save the Party money? How terrible. How unprincipled. Wes said: *==Robert, I assume there are no variable charges to the account. In other words, we have a flat $500 per year fee and when Caryn Ann uses it we don't get hit with additional usage fees. If there are extra usage fees, please let us know about that.* *Caryn Ann, I don't think we are selling this service. This is offered free of charge. But, if you use it, I do hope someone will contribute $100 in thanks to the party. ==* I said: *==**Wes, I will test it out and learn it with some small meetings, and if we use it for our yearly member meeting in June (which was the original purpose of the request), I will make sure that a gift is given to the party.* *I will share any feedback I have regarding any deficiencies and pluses for future consideration of the party when considering our options in next budget.==* And get ready here is when the big reveal was given: *==Hi Alicia, I understand how Adobe Connect works and would like the credentials as per Nick's permission to my caucus to use for an upcoming meeting and I would need to do some test runs. This means that I could be available to get online if a subcommittee ever needs to use.* *I would like to use this as well for the historical preservation committee - in the beginning we are going to be meeting weekly.==* At this point the LPRC already was strongly considering something else, and I pursued this *SO I COULD BE A BACKUP PLAN TO TAKE LOAD OFF OF ALICIA, HELP SUB-COMMITTEES, AND FOR THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE.* This has been made into a FB nontroversy as well. Well, now everyone has the entire context and they can judge for themselves what a terrible unprincipled request I made. I have hopes (it springs eternal) that regret would be expressed at this situation. But I suspect I will instead be scolded for taking offense, its my fault for not caring for being smeared. And also, I will note it is inappropriate for any of us to promote the virtues of one caucus over another. When I was involved in LPRC leadership (I no longer am, I resigned after the "Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus" post), I was very careful NOT to do that. This list is a Party asset as well. We don't use it to promote one caucus over another. Is it a huge deal? No. Not really. But if I had done that, it would have been made to be the Apocalypse (yes that is hyperbole for a point). Caucuses serve and important need in this Party and enrich us. There is something for everyone and they all have good and bad points. We all should be proud of our involvements in the ones that suit our needs but we should not use our Party position on a Party list to put another one down. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft* First, once again, I am going to say that amongst very responsible genuine concerns discussed recently, there have been overlays of innuendo and insinuation that are the things we should expect from the old parties. Not us. Perhaps I should be thankful since apparently all I care about is "profile building" and the recent events have people who normally are not typically my usual allies have got in touch to express astonishment and support. But to my point- In another email, the fact the LPRC had requested use of the LP's Adobe account was mentioned. And then spun off into an exposition of how it was unprincipled even if they were allowed and how another particular caucus would have refused (unlike the LPRC apparently). Can we stop this? Please. Let me set that record straight and I challenge anyone to make an argument with a straight face that this was unprincipled. HERE IS THE ORIGINAL REQUEST: ==Wes, would the LP consider renting the use of its Adobe Connect room ( if it is an account that allows up to 100 participants) for a donation? The LP Radical Caucus needs an afternoon for a member meeting and Adobe only licensing by the year for the larger room. I understand their yearly fee is $500- we would be willing to donate $100 for the one day use.== THE LPRC OFFERED TO PAY FOR IT. 20% of the total cost for ONE DAY OF USE. And if this COULD BE OPENED UP TO OTHER GROUPS the Party could cover its expenses. Wow, that casts it in another light doesn't it. As the Proverb says, one man seems right until another presents his case. Nobody volunteers for this job to have their principles impugned. I certainly don't, and I CERTAINLY DON'T APPRECIATE OR DESERVE IT. So stop. This isn't what the Libertarian Party is all about. And if but for the requirement that Ms. Mattson must administer all meetings, I stand by the idea that if the LP could get its costs covered, or even get additional funds, that is not only not unprincipled, it is SMART. Wes at first expressed reservations and said he would speak with Nick. I said cool. Then, I said this in response to the information that only one person knew how to run it and it could be clunky: ==I will do some test runs to learn it and see. It is probably a good idea to have someone else who also knows it in the event of an LNC need. It might not be a bad idea to have someone familiar in case Jess or anyone ever wants to try having an interactive member presentation like we do with the conference calls. There might be some potential here since we have the license already. And I love playing with this stuff. I have done some Adobe training. I am doing some test runs of some new products (like [1]zoom.us) and having a good comparison might good as well in there is a better more cost effective solution for the LNC to consider in the future (though yes I know Adobe Connect is in the Policy Manual). == Oh... so I wanted to do research to save the Party money? How terrible. How unprincipled. Wes said: ==Robert, I assume there are no variable charges to the account. In other words, we have a flat $500 per year fee and when Caryn Ann uses it we don't get hit with additional usage fees. If there are extra usage fees, please let us know about that. Caryn Ann, I don't think we are selling this service. This is offered free of charge. But, if you use it, I do hope someone will contribute $100 in thanks to the party. == I said: ==Wes, I will test it out and learn it with some small meetings, and if we use it for our yearly member meeting in June (which was the original purpose of the request), I will make sure that a gift is given to the party. I will share any feedback I have regarding any deficiencies and pluses for future consideration of the party when considering our options in next budget.== And get ready here is when the big reveal was given: ==Hi Alicia, I understand how Adobe Connect works and would like the credentials as per Nick's permission to my caucus to use for an upcoming meeting and I would need to do some test runs. This means that I could be available to get online if a subcommittee ever needs to use. I would like to use this as well for the historical preservation committee - in the beginning we are going to be meeting weekly.== At this point the LPRC already was strongly considering something else, and I pursued this SO I COULD BE A BACKUP PLAN TO TAKE LOAD OFF OF ALICIA, HELP SUB-COMMITTEES, AND FOR THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE. This has been made into a FB nontroversy as well. Well, now everyone has the entire context and they can judge for themselves what a terrible unprincipled request I made. I have hopes (it springs eternal) that regret would be expressed at this situation. But I suspect I will instead be scolded for taking offense, its my fault for not caring for being smeared. And also, I will note it is inappropriate for any of us to promote the virtues of one caucus over another. When I was involved in LPRC leadership (I no longer am, I resigned after the "Libertarian Party Nudist Caucus" post), I was very careful NOT to do that. This list is a Party asset as well. We don't use it to promote one caucus over another. Is it a huge deal? No. Not really. But if I had done that, it would have been made to be the Apocalypse (yes that is hyperbole for a point). Caucuses serve and important need in this Party and enrich us. There is something for everyone and they all have good and bad points. We all should be proud of our involvements in the ones that suit our needs but we should not use our Party position on a Party list to put another one down. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - [2]Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, [3]Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft References 1. http://zoom.us/ 2. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org 3. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

5 13

URGENT - Request for ExCom meeting to add LP's voice opposing FOSTA (HR 1865) and SESTA (S. 1693)
by Starchild 28 Feb '18

28 Feb '18

I'm requesting that the LNC Executive Committee hold a special meeting ASAP for the purpose of voting to add the Libertarian Party as a signatory to the following attached letter in opposition to two bad pieces of legislation currently in Congress which would further criminalize consensual prostitution, and related online speech including sharing harm reduction and safety tips for sex workers, in the name of fighting sex trafficking (which they would do nothing to stop). This harmful legislation was just brought to my attention. The House bill, the "Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" or FOSTA, may be voted on in the House as soon as TOMORROW (Tuesday, February 27), which makes this a time–sensitive matter that lacks the time for a vote of the full LNC. I've reviewed the letter and did not notice anything substantive in it that is objectionable from a libertarian perspective, but I encourage others to review it as well. Due to our screwed-up email list, I have copied the text of the letter below as well as attaching it as a PDF file. Also attached is a graphic detailing some of the provisions of these two bills (which may not come through). The libertarian-oriented Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also has a page devoted to stopping FOSTA for its Internet censorship provisions – https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693 . Another website with additional information detailing what's bad about both bills is https://medium.com/@EngineOrg/myth-vs-fact-what-you-need-to-know-about-sest… . The actual text of the bills can be read at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 (FOSTA) and https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693 (SESTA). Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee RealReform(a)earthlink.net (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF TEXT OF LETTER FOR LP TO SIGN ONTO: February 25, 2018 As organizations which support the rights, health and wellbeing of individuals who trade sex, the undersigned are firmly against the passage of “Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act” SESTA (S. 1693) and “Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” FOSTA (H.1865). This legislation will cause harm without improving anti-trafficking efforts. Passage of this legislation will put the most vulnerable in our communities at higher risk of violence and victimization. We reject legislation that threaten the lives and safety of individuals trading sex - people who are disproportionately LGBTQ, immigrant, and people of color trying to survive. This legislation will target peers and communities who use the internet for harm reduction and anti-violence work, and isolate people who trade sex, increasing vulnerability to violence and victimization. Meaningful anti-trafficking work should not make those in the sex trade more susceptible to violence and exploitation. After the closure of RedBook or Rentboy.com, sex workers became even more vulnerable and economically precarious. Both FOSTA and SESTA promote the closing of those websites and chill the possibility for organizations to create internet-based platforms which service providers and communities use to distribute and access harm reduction and safety information and techniques. Under the current language in the Communications and Decency Act, prosecutors have every tool required to go after third parties, including websites, who have engaged in trafficking in persons. The proposed changes made by SESTA open this to a wider civil liability without clear guidelines for how to obey the law. These costly lawsuits could easily imperil any website which caters to, or even acknowledges, people who trade sex. This including websites which: - Host ads, enabling safer conditions and screening for violence - Host harm reduction information and mechanisms, including safety and health tips for workers - Create community for people who trade sex to share information We anticipate that this will have a chilling effect on websites and organizations providing valuable safety information, community and peer support. Denying these resources exacerbate the risk of violence and victimization of sex workers, including those experiencing exploitation. Websites which hold that information are also vital resources for trafficking investigations. Pushing the sex trade further underground means that it will be harder to identify potential victims, find an electronic trail for which to build cases, and resurrect information to access post-conviction relief. SESTA disincentivizes websites from holding or creating a digital footprint, destroying these valuable tools for law enforcement and service providers. Further, shutting down websites that sex workers use to screen clients more safely through ads does not deter people from trading sex. To the contrary, this only drives sex workers to find clients through street-based work where they face higher rates of violence, HIV, Hep C and STI transmission, and exploitation. And those with fewer options will inevitably be the most impacted. The impact of this legislation is that trafficking victims will see more trauma and violence and have fewer opportunities for identification by law enforcement. The House-backed bill, FOSTA, takes this one step further and criminalizes anyone using those platforms - including sex workers and trafficking victims - and expands this to prostitution, as opposed to the narrower crime of sex trafficking. By expanding the Mann Act, which criminalizes the transportation of a person across state lines for the purpose of prostitution, to encompass all of the internet means that all harm reduction tools, which almost always involve connecting to peers and community for safety and information, makes people criminally liable for up to ten years in prison. Under FOSTA, sharing information about violence, victimizers, HIV/STI transmission when engaged in sex work would put a person at risk for criminal prosecution. We have already seen these activities criminalized to the detriment of those trading sex, and very often criminalizing trafficking victims themselves. Improving anti-trafficking efforts does not mean expanding the umbrella to crimes which require no force, fraud or coercion, and this expansion undermines the original intent of the law. Currently, there are no standards for what is expected of internet-based platforms when trafficking in the sex trade is suspected. This legislation does not get us closer to that goal, and instead makes it harder for trafficking investigators, prosecutors or service providers to connect with potential victims and sex workers better able to protect themselves from exploitation. Meaningful legislation would empower stakeholders - sex workers, internet platforms, law enforcement, the legal community and service providers - to come together and build those expectations in a way which mitigates harm. As organizations which believe in supporting the safety and lives of those engaged in the sex trade, we condemn these efforts and encourage Congress to focus their efforts on harm reduction. These moves criminalize the survival of our communities, especially those with compounding marginalizations which make resources even more difficult to obtain. Sincerely,

6 10

A hypothetical question
by Caryn Ann Harlos 28 Feb '18

28 Feb '18

Hypothetical question: Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could be a regional rep for one state and an alternate for another? And what are they? Both? The “superior” position? If so, how would that work in an email vote? There are multiple practical issues. Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on platcomm and will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds and opinions can lead to insights. How the LNC would hypothetically handle would be a helpful piece of information. The parallels are not exact but would give insight. Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes - theoretically could an at-large or regional also be an officer? Is that something our Bylaws intended to allow? Any and all insight appreciated. I would be more than happy to detail what issues of fundamental inequity present themselves when dealing with email voting in my first hypothetical. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos(a)LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: *We defend your rights* *And oppose the use of force* *Taxation is theft* Hypothetical question: Do our Bylaws allow or even contemplate that one person could be a regional rep for one state and an alternate for another? And what are they? Both? The “superior” position? If so, how would that work in an email vote? There are multiple practical issues. Yes I am asking because a similar issue has come up on platcomm and will be the subject of a future meeting and many minds and opinions can lead to insights. How the LNC would hypothetically handle would be a helpful piece of information. The parallels are not exact but would give insight. Also - if assuming the answer to paragraph one is yes - theoretically could an at-large or regional also be an officer? Is that something our Bylaws intended to allow? Any and all insight appreciated. I would be more than happy to detail what issues of fundamental inequity present themselves when dealing with email voting in my first hypothetical. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - [1]Caryn.Ann. Harlos(a)LP.org Communications Director, [2]Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee A haiku to the Statement of Principles: We defend your rights And oppose the use of force Taxation is theft References 1. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org 2. http://www.lpcolorado.org/

6 20

Friday's indictments
by Joshua Katz 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

In light of Friday's indictments, and other concerns, I suggest that there are two issues we should consider: 1. The willingness of LP officials to appear on RT, the role RT plays in our media portfolio, and the stance this party took on requiring RT to register under FARA. 2. The ways in which we work with other parties, including on ballot access and such things as "minor party candidate" debates. I note that I was very pleased that we did not do the latter in the last election cycle, for reasons unrelated to the current revelations. Recent events, though, drive home the fact that we cannot vet the candidates of other parties, we do not know how they are funded, and we should, therefore, be careful about building relationships with them. I think, for example, that it is relatively well-known that money flowed from the Sanders campaign to Jill Stein's campaign. Joshua A. Katz <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> In light of Friday's indictments, and other concerns, I suggest that there are two issues we should consider: 1. The willingness of LP officials to appear on RT, the role RT plays in our media portfolio, and the stance this party took on requiring RT to register under FARA. 2. The ways in which we work with other parties, including on ballot access and such things as "minor party candidate" debates. I note that I was very pleased that we did not do the latter in the last election cycle, for reasons unrelated to the current revelations. Recent events, though, drive home the fact that we cannot vet the candidates of other parties, we do not know how they are funded, and we should, therefore, be careful about building relationships with them. I think, for example, that it is relatively well-known that money flowed from the Sanders campaign to Jill Stein's campaign. Joshua A. Katz Virus-free. [1]www.avast.com References Visible links 1. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai… Hidden links: 3. https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai… 4. file://localhost/tmp/tmp_63VdK.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2

1 1