I let Assemblyman Moore know about the motion and offered to forward any response from him to the LNC. He said he will get his thoughts together in the next couple of days. Tim Hagan From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 10:23 PM Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore I am sure that some are chomping at the bit to hurry up and vote on this so that they will feel like they've made a statement. However, I strongly recommend that we should not vote until Assemblyman Moore has been offered the chance to send us a statement to defend his actions.  If you were the target of a censure motion, wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself BEFORE people voted? -Alicia On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.   Co-Sponsors:  Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath Motion: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Interesting question on division. FWIW, I would oppose. If we had not given MEMBER'S money - who have the right to expect us never to assist increasing government - I would have not moved anything but let the LPNV statement stand on its own (though I would not oppose a straight censure - our duty requires more). We are involved because we have money. And if our trust in basic libertarian principles was then breached we should request return. We stand for things. We must stand or become no better than that which libertarians have given decades and millions to oppose. On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote:

Is someone in particular extending an invitation to him to speak for himself?

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:23 AM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','agmattson@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

I am sure that some are chomping at the bit to hurry up and vote on this so that they will feel like they've made a statement.

However, I strongly recommend that we should not vote until Assemblyman Moore has been offered the chance to send us a statement to defend his actions. If you were the target of a censure motion, wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself BEFORE people voted?

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','agmattson@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business@hq.lp.org');> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia. I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals. Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty three to one with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony: “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a political football to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.” The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles. ~David Pratt Demarest From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Mattson Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion. Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm. IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials? I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him. I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc. Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP. The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend. If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive. -Alicia On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com <mailto:agmattson@gmail.com> > wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath Motion: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia

I vote yes. *I encourage anyone inclined to vote yes to do so* - if you change your mind after hearing from Moore- you can change your vote. Yes David, that is partially to you but also to members who have not yet voted. As it stands right now, I support. Being a Libertarian lawmaker should mean something. And there may be areas that we disagree but it doesn't arise to censure. One things people from alll points of view have agreed on: it doesn't involve sweet heart deals to crony interests that is nothing more than further robbing people to give to others. It is coercion and a massive initiation of force against property - and of course something that is not proper role, if any, of government. Party. Of. Principle. That principle isn't just wearing a shiny L next to your name rather than an R or a D. It is much, much more. It isn't welcome to the new boss; Same as the old boss. Libertarians do not say that massive government works that violate rights is okay if 60% of the people want it. We are sounding more and more like the justifications of the aggressionist policies of business as usual. I have some real issues with a couple of things said in Alicia's post that I may address later but one requires a response now. As for me, I categorically DO NOT get "my friends" to email on issues. I maintain a regional mailing list take contain all comers - friendly to my positions or not- and lay issues before them and encourage them to maintain contact. I maintain a website and several FB groups for the same purpose. It distresses me greatly that contact from members is often referred to in a way that connotes lack of value. It should not be that way in a voluntary membership organization that values bottom up dynamics. So I hope it is settled - that at least for me - I categorically do not do that. ALL region 1 members and elsewhere are encouraged to write. And we are then to take what they say in mind and to them I always make clear - the party principles - which our Bylaws dictate as our purpose - is the ultimate guide. If we wish to argue the value of member communications or if the ones that write are because "friends" are asked- let's start a separate discussion. On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dpdemarest@centurylink.net');>> wrote:

...

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lnc-business@hq.lp.org');> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','agmattson@gmail.com');>> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business@hq.lp.org');> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

Caryn Ann, If I am not persuaded by a particular argument, I do not find it suddenly more persuasive if it is repeated at a louder volume by having 10 other people email me to repeat the exact same argument. It is even less persuasive when the message I receive says "The Radical Caucus told me I was supposed to email you and say X. So here ya go!" To change my mind, I need a more persuasive argument, not louder volume. If I disagree with an idea, to have someone twist that into an accusation that I disdain the membership...well, that's the sort of campaign rhetoric misrepresentation that makes most of the public hate politics. Rounding up lots of people to email the LNC and repeat the same idea we've already heard is essentially asking the LNC to do exactly what that this motion would censure John Moore for doing, voting how he thinks his constituents want him to vote as opposed to what he thinks he should do. I don't know if the 60% figure for the opinion of John Moore's constituents is from a scientific poll or not, but on LNC issues, organized email campaigns are also not the same thing as a poll that reasonably accurately represents the collective opinion of the membership. -Alicia On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

In addition to objecting to the comment about "organized email campaigns of friends" I also object - or perhaps caution - against pulling the pin on the old grenade of "purity policing." Objecting to a classic crony boondoggle, betraying the Nevada affiliate, and undermining consistent LP efforts in NV - from a candidate we voted to fund - is pretty specific and certainly is not in any universe some highly rarified case of Libertarian "purity."- the slippery slope is a red herring here. Further, the term itself is objectionable as it seems to simply refer to an adherence to what our Bylaws state - that the Statement of Principles is our foundational philosophy through which liberty shall be achieved. More practically speaking for sake of facilitating productive conversation - there are many such libertarian grenades. Once we decide that this chestnut is acceptable here, then the slippery slop of selling out and "carpet baggers" becomes fair game - and I do not wish that. It may not happen here - but it may in discussions of membership and we are to set an example. I am not ashamed nor worried that the Statement of Principles is our guidepost.

For those who have a less direct "from here to there" view than I have - there is no universe in which voting for these outrageous members moves public policy in a libertarian direction and in fact is a massive holding the needle in the exact awful trajectory we are on now (in additional to the fact that these were specific issues near and dear to the heart of the Nevada affiliate).

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

*I encourage anyone inclined to vote yes to do so* - if you change your mind after hearing from Moore- you can change your vote. Yes David, that is partially to you but also to members who have not yet voted.

As it stands right now, I support. Being a Libertarian lawmaker should mean something. And there may be areas that we disagree but it doesn't arise to censure. One things people from alll points of view have agreed on: it doesn't involve sweet heart deals to crony interests that is nothing more than further robbing people to give to others. It is coercion and a massive initiation of force against property - and of course something that is not proper role, if any, of government.

Party. Of. Principle. That principle isn't just wearing a shiny L next to your name rather than an R or a D. It is much, much more. It isn't welcome to the new boss; Same as the old boss.

Libertarians do not say that massive government works that violate rights is okay if 60% of the people want it. We are sounding more and more like the justifications of the aggressionist policies of business as usual.

I have some real issues with a couple of things said in Alicia's post that I may address later but one requires a response now. As for me, I categorically DO NOT get "my friends" to email on issues. I maintain a regional mailing list take contain all comers - friendly to my positions or not- and lay issues before them and encourage them to maintain contact. I maintain a website and several FB groups for the same purpose. It distresses me greatly that contact from members is often referred to in a way that connotes lack of value. It should not be that way in a voluntary membership organization that values bottom up dynamics. So I hope it is settled - that at least for me - I categorically do not do that. ALL region 1 members and elsewhere are encouraged to write. And we are then to take what they say in mind and to them I always make clear - the party principles - which our Bylaws dictate as our purpose - is the ultimate guide. If we wish to argue the value of member communications or if the ones that write are because "friends" are asked- let's start a separate discussion.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

...

DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

...

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Has Tim or anyone else heard back from John Moore yet? I have not. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Oct 22, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Starchild wrote:

Perhaps it does not apply in your case Alicia, but I can understand why someone might assume that anyone on the LNC who is prepared to excuse an elected Libertarian's votes for tax increases on the grounds that they were supported by a majority of his constituents, could themselves be swayed by hearing from their own constituents.

While it's true that email campaigns are not scientific polls, they are manifestations of public opinion. The percentage of the public that supports or opposes a particular course of action is the most obvious way of measuring public opinion, but the relative strength with which supporters and opponents hold their views, as measured by their willingness to take the time to speak out and lobby, is another valid metric.

Of course the opinions held by members of the public are not all equally valid. Clearly there is a moral distinction to be drawn between the kind of constituent views which can be used to justify an unlibertarian vote, and constituent views that support taking a position one believes to be in the interests of the Libertarian Party and the cause of liberty. John Moore isn't facing censure because he voted the way his constituents wanted him to; he is facing censure for voting in an unlibertarian manner. If the majority of his constituents had wanted him to vote against the tax hikes, and he had done so, his actions would have been commendable, and if most of his constituents had opposed the tax hikes but he had still voted for them, he would still be facing censure and possibly even more outrage from Libertarians than he faces now.

Under other circumstances I would agree that whether or not John Moore is a member of the national LP would be a relevant consideration, but in this case the LNC donated money to his campaign and the state affiliate to which he belongs has already censured him, so I see his national membership status as a moot point.

"All and sundry", by the way, is just a shorter and more elegant way of saying "collectively and individually", i.e. that our resolution is not addressed solely to Assemblyman Moore, but is more broadly intended as a cautionary message to other current and future Libertarian officeholders, a reminder that our support is not unconditional, but rather contingent upon their acting to uphold freedom, not infringe on it.

I do appreciate the point raised by Ken about waiting to hear from Assemblyman Moore directly before voting. While I am hard-pressed to think of any likely explanation that would make me see the votes in question as acceptable or undeserving of censure (perhaps if members of his family were being held hostage by statist goons?), I will join David in delaying my vote for the present in order to hear from Moore himself first if possible (I just left a phone message with his office). Since we can as Caryn pointed out change our votes after casting them until voting has concluded, this is mainly for form's sake, and I can understand those who have gone ahead and voted since I do not believe it has been a consistent practice for LNC members to delay their votes in such cases and there is no guarantee we will hear from him. Nevertheless, waiting a slight additional length of time feels to me like the proper choice.

Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF

On Oct 22, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Alicia Mattson wrote:

...

Caryn Ann,

If I am not persuaded by a particular argument, I do not find it suddenly more persuasive if it is repeated at a louder volume by having 10 other people email me to repeat the exact same argument.

It is even less persuasive when the message I receive says "The Radical Caucus told me I was supposed to email you and say X. So here ya go!"

To change my mind, I need a more persuasive argument, not louder volume.

If I disagree with an idea, to have someone twist that into an accusation that I disdain the membership...well, that's the sort of campaign rhetoric misrepresentation that makes most of the public hate politics.

Rounding up lots of people to email the LNC and repeat the same idea we've already heard is essentially asking the LNC to do exactly what that this motion would censure John Moore for doing, voting how he thinks his constituents want him to vote as opposed to what he thinks he should do.

I don't know if the 60% figure for the opinion of John Moore's constituents is from a scientific poll or not, but on LNC issues, organized email campaigns are also not the same thing as a poll that reasonably accurately represents the collective opinion of the membership.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:00 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: In addition to objecting to the comment about "organized email campaigns of friends" I also object - or perhaps caution - against pulling the pin on the old grenade of "purity policing." Objecting to a classic crony boondoggle, betraying the Nevada affiliate, and undermining consistent LP efforts in NV - from a candidate we voted to fund - is pretty specific and certainly is not in any universe some highly rarified case of Libertarian "purity."- the slippery slope is a red herring here. Further, the term itself is objectionable as it seems to simply refer to an adherence to what our Bylaws state - that the Statement of Principles is our foundational philosophy through which liberty shall be achieved. More practically speaking for sake of facilitating productive conversation - there are many such libertarian grenades. Once we decide that this chestnut is acceptable here, then the slippery slop of selling out and "carpet baggers" becomes fair game - and I do not wish that. It may not happen here - but it may in discussions of membership and we are to set an example. I am not ashamed nor worried that the Statement of Principles is our guidepost.

For those who have a less direct "from here to there" view than I have - there is no universe in which voting for these outrageous members moves public policy in a libertarian direction and in fact is a massive holding the needle in the exact awful trajectory we are on now (in additional to the fact that these were specific issues near and dear to the heart of the Nevada affiliate).

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: I vote yes.

*I encourage anyone inclined to vote yes to do so* - if you change your mind after hearing from Moore- you can change your vote. Yes David, that is partially to you but also to members who have not yet voted.

As it stands right now, I support. Being a Libertarian lawmaker should mean something. And there may be areas that we disagree but it doesn't arise to censure. One things people from alll points of view have agreed on: it doesn't involve sweet heart deals to crony interests that is nothing more than further robbing people to give to others. It is coercion and a massive initiation of force against property - and of course something that is not proper role, if any, of government.

Party. Of. Principle. That principle isn't just wearing a shiny L next to your name rather than an R or a D. It is much, much more. It isn't welcome to the new boss; Same as the old boss.

Libertarians do not say that massive government works that violate rights is okay if 60% of the people want it. We are sounding more and more like the justifications of the aggressionist policies of business as usual.

I have some real issues with a couple of things said in Alicia's post that I may address later but one requires a response now. As for me, I categorically DO NOT get "my friends" to email on issues. I maintain a regional mailing list take contain all comers - friendly to my positions or not- and lay issues before them and encourage them to maintain contact. I maintain a website and several FB groups for the same purpose. It distresses me greatly that contact from members is often referred to in a way that connotes lack of value. It should not be that way in a voluntary membership organization that values bottom up dynamics. So I hope it is settled - that at least for me - I categorically do not do that. ALL region 1 members and elsewhere are encouraged to write. And we are then to take what they say in mind and to them I always make clear - the party principles - which our Bylaws dictate as our purpose - is the ultimate guide. If we wish to argue the value of member communications or if the ones that write are because "friends" are asked- let's start a separate discussion.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty three to one with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a political football to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Mattson Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

Motion:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

---

Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

I vote yes. Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in Nebraska:

“Mr. Secretary,

David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142

I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case.

I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.

To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is not just practical. It is the only moral choice!

I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!”

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore. Brett C. Bittner Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee brett.bittner@lp.org 317.643.2566 **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos. On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:

I vote Yes.

This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on principle and to make a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history and Mr. Moore failed miserably.

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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep

On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

...

Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in Nebraska:

“Mr. Secretary,

David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142

I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case.

I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.

To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is not just practical. It is the only moral choice!

I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!”

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

I vote yes. A libertarian elected official's duty is to cut government. That's it. Not to support the tyranny of a misled majority. -Arvin On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap>

I agree completely.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org> wrote:

...

I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee

brett.bittner@lp.org 317.643.2566

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote Yes.

This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on principle and to make a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history and Mr. Moore failed miserably.

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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep

On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

...

Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in Nebraska:

“Mr. Secretary,

David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142

I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case.

I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.

To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is not just practical. It is the only moral choice!

I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!”

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634

I think it's an interesting question as to whether or not the motion as presented is divisible, and I'm unclear as to the proposed division. Regardless, the bigger issue is that it is basically impossible to handle division of the question by email ballot, leading me to believe it is out of order on an email ballot. Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat) On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote:

Alicia,

Is it appropriate/allowable to move to divide this motion? 1) Censure 2) Call for refund/reimbursement/restitution

As for the rest of the language in the last two paragraphs, I could do without it.

Whitney Bilyeu

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

A libertarian elected official's duty is to cut government. That's it. Not to support the tyranny of a misled majority.

-Arvin

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap>

I agree completely.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org> wrote:

...

I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee

brett.bittner@lp.org 317.643.2566

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote Yes.

This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on principle and to make a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history and Mr. Moore failed miserably.

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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep

On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

> Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate > email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death > penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming > but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as > spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way, > turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in > Nebraska: > > > > “Mr. Secretary, > > > > David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142 > > > > I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional > Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. > > > > I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the > retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by > the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians > overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for > practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally > aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that > support the death penalty. > > > > Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable > failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial > burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it > visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up > revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the > undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators > instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the > death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by > the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case. > > > > I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In > addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of > predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it > is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used > as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host > of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the > death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your > conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities. > > > > To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to > “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is > not just practical. It is the only moral choice! > > > > I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and > have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to > ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!” > > > > > > *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On > Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson > *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM > *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John > Moore > > > > DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions > with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a > private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty > and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across > the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD > > > Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death > penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example > situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the > adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 > opposed. > > -Alicia > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < > dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: > > I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that > merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to > express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s > salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to > represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by > Caryn and Alicia. > > > > I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents > favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for > his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to > reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to > reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably > consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no > two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, > Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from > my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions > and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations > of principles and morals. > > > > Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate > the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, > with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode > Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. > Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal > fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty > that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I > mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I > was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly > against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no > Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death > penalty. > > > > Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate > of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents > favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with > the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views > [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely > in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony: > > > > “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political > football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical > questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death > penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your > conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.” > > > > The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for > obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for > Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say > but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but > also to our personal principles. > > > > ~David Pratt Demarest > > > > *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On > Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson > *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM > *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org > *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John > Moore > > > > I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, > but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion. > > Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power > of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of > passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world > difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm. > > IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in > hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in > hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of > being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I > also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage > organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a > public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as > party officials? > > > > I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate > Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a > conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I > don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his > position to us. We should get it straight from him. > > I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey > a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're > discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree > with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I > probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. > Etc. > > Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same > group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that > he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, > our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership > certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that > doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure > Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or > even the LP. > > The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so > what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return > the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to > become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected > official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting > such a trend. > > If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that > decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. > I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive. > > -Alicia > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson < > agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have an electronic mail ballot. > > > > *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at > 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* > *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, > Goldstein, Redpath > > *Motion:* > > Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in > January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during > the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to > raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" > tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far > successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to > finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, > indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and > > Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada > have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious > votes; and > > Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that > while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties > who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we > do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue > voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; > > Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee > hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax > increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which > the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward > be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party > with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. > > -Alicia > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > > _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Alicia, thank you for your thorough reply. Though one point touched upon this Moore situation, in all I think it a tangent we both went on, so I will respond in a fresh thread so as not to distract here. But I need to get something really clear here as it has been alleged two times, and it is not correct. *I categorically did not have any email campaign to have anyone write anyone about this motion, * so I would appreciate it if that was not said. A member wrote me prior to my motion, and I advised him to contact his regional representative as he was not in my region. After that, region 1 members indicated their desire, and I heard from a Nevada board member. All I did on this, is what I do on *every single item of business before the LNC*, I post a notice in several groups with a link to the discussion. My encouragements for members to write *are general and ongoing and not tied to any specific matter of business* with few exceptions - those being the Motion to Rescind as their rights were being violated. I have been at outreach and sign waving all day. I will respond to your email later tonight in a new thread when I am refreshed. On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

Whitney, it was a request, specially worded so in the resolution, not a demand.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think it's an interesting question as to whether or not the motion as presented is divisible, and I'm unclear as to the proposed division. Regardless, the bigger issue is that it is basically impossible to handle division of the question by email ballot, leading me to believe it is out of order on an email ballot.

Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Alicia,

Is it appropriate/allowable to move to divide this motion? 1) Censure 2) Call for refund/reimbursement/restitution

As for the rest of the language in the last two paragraphs, I could do without it.

Whitney Bilyeu

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

A libertarian elected official's duty is to cut government. That's it. Not to support the tyranny of a misled majority.

-Arvin

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap>

I agree completely.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org> wrote:

...

I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee

brett.bittner@lp.org 317.643.2566

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:

> I vote Yes. > > This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on > principle and to make > a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history > and Mr. Moore > failed miserably. > > > > 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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < > patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I vote yes. >> >> Patrick McKnight >> Region 8 Rep >> >> On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" < >> dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: >> >>> Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a >>> separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on >>> the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 >>> overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral >>> implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, >>> by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the >>> LP in Nebraska: >>> >>> >>> >>> “Mr. Secretary, >>> >>> >>> >>> David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142 >>> >>> >>> >>> I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional >>> Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the >>> retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by >>> the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians >>> overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for >>> practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally >>> aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that >>> support the death penalty. >>> >>> >>> >>> Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the >>> indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the >>> financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and >>> suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice >>> and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure >>> because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the >>> perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral >>> use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically >>> illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case. >>> >>> >>> >>> I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In >>> addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of >>> predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it >>> is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used >>> as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a >>> host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to >>> advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine >>> your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities. >>> >>> >>> >>> To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote >>> to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It >>> is not just practical. It is the only moral choice! >>> >>> >>> >>> I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early >>> and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 >>> to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!” >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson >>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM >>> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John >>> Moore >>> >>> >>> >>> DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions >>> with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a >>> private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty >>> and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across >>> the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD >>> >>> >>> Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death >>> penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example >>> situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the >>> adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 >>> opposed. >>> >>> -Alicia >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < >>> dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that >>> merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to >>> express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s >>> salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to >>> represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by >>> Caryn and Alicia. >>> >>> >>> >>> I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of >>> constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as >>> justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, >>> we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we >>> have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully >>> are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for >>> the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all >>> principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent >>> example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing >>> political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless >>> of any considerations of principles and morals. >>> >>> >>> >>> Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate >>> the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, >>> with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode >>> Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. >>> Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal >>> fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty >>> that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I >>> mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I >>> was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly >>> against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no >>> Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death >>> penalty. >>> >>> >>> >>> Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School >>> classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his >>> constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three >>> to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his >>> constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked >>> Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following >>> passionate testimony: >>> >>> >>> >>> “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political >>> football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical >>> questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death >>> penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your >>> conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” >>> for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification >>> for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to >>> say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles >>> but also to our personal principles. >>> >>> >>> >>> ~David Pratt Demarest >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson >>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM >>> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John >>> Moore >>> >>> >>> >>> I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, >>> but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion. >>> >>> Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power >>> of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of >>> passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world >>> difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm. >>> >>> IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency >>> in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes >>> in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of >>> being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I >>> also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage >>> organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a >>> public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as >>> party officials? >>> >>> >>> >>> I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate >>> Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a >>> conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I >>> don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his >>> position to us. We should get it straight from him. >>> >>> I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. >>> "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? >>> We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely >>> agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I >>> probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. >>> Etc. >>> >>> Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that >>> same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed >>> that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in >>> May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership >>> certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that >>> doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure >>> Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or >>> even the LP. >>> >>> The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, >>> so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him >>> return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC >>> going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal >>> elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about >>> starting such a trend. >>> >>> If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that >>> decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. >>> I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive. >>> >>> -Alicia >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson < >>> agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> We have an electronic mail ballot. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at >>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* >>> *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, >>> Goldstein, Redpath >>> >>> *Motion:* >>> >>> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in >>> January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during >>> the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to >>> raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" >>> tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far >>> successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to >>> finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, >>> indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and >>> >>> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada >>> have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious >>> votes; and >>> >>> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that >>> while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties >>> who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we >>> do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue >>> voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; >>> >>> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee >>> hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax >>> increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which >>> the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward >>> be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party >>> with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. >>> >>> -Alicia >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

Alicia, And that is an absolutely disjunctive comparison. Thank you for stating that it is not anything that I have done here. I will respond in another thread as stated. This isn't the first time member input has been discouraged and made unwelcome - thus important enough to pursue in its own thread. I will post a link to the Google groups topic for future readers as it will in one sense touch upon here - the false equivalency. On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

Caryn Ann,

I have not alleged that the email campaign tactic has been used on THIS motion. Mike Shipley is the only person outside the LNC who has contacted me on this issue, and my comments about that tactic were made before I received his email.

I am comparing a tactic that has been used to try to influence the LNC on other topics with what we're being told by others was allegedly Assemblyman Moore's motivation.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carynannharlos@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

Alicia, thank you for your thorough reply. Though one point touched upon this Moore situation, in all I think it a tangent we both went on, so I will respond in a fresh thread so as not to distract here.

But I need to get something really clear here as it has been alleged two times, and it is not correct. *I categorically did not have any email campaign to have anyone write anyone about this motion, * so I would appreciate it if that was not said. A member wrote me prior to my motion, and I advised him to contact his regional representative as he was not in my region. After that, region 1 members indicated their desire, and I heard from a Nevada board member. All I did on this, is what I do on *every single item of business before the LNC*, I post a notice in several groups with a link to the discussion. My encouragements for members to write *are general and ongoing and not tied to any specific matter of business* with few exceptions - those being the Motion to Rescind as their rights were being violated.

I have been at outreach and sign waving all day. I will respond to your email later tonight in a new thread when I am refreshed.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carynannharlos@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

Whitney, it was a request, specially worded so in the resolution, not a demand.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','planning4liberty@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

I think it's an interesting question as to whether or not the motion as presented is divisible, and I'm unclear as to the proposed division. Regardless, the bigger issue is that it is basically impossible to handle division of the question by email ballot, leading me to believe it is out of order on an email ballot.

Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','whitneycb76@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

Alicia,

Is it appropriate/allowable to move to divide this motion? 1) Censure 2) Call for refund/reimbursement/restitution

As for the rest of the language in the last two paragraphs, I could do without it.

Whitney Bilyeu

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','votevohra@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

A libertarian elected official's duty is to cut government. That's it. Not to support the tyranny of a misled majority.

-Arvin

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carynannharlos@gmail.com');>> wrote:

> Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap> > > I agree completely. > > > > > On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org> > wrote: > >> I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so >> until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore. >> >> Brett C. Bittner >> >> Region 3 Representative >> Libertarian National Committee >> >> brett.bittner@lp.org >> 317.643.2566 >> >> **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos. >> >> On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I vote Yes. >>> >>> This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on >>> principle and to make >>> a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our >>> history and Mr. Moore >>> failed miserably. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < >>> patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I vote yes. >>>> >>>> Patrick McKnight >>>> Region 8 Rep >>>> >>>> On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" < >>>> dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a >>>>> separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on >>>>> the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 >>>>> overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral >>>>> implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, >>>>> by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the >>>>> LP in Nebraska: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “Mr. Secretary, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE >>>>> 68142 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional >>>>> Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the >>>>> retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by >>>>> the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians >>>>> overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for >>>>> practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally >>>>> aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation >>>>> that support the death penalty. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the >>>>> indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the >>>>> financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and >>>>> suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice >>>>> and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure >>>>> because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the >>>>> perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral >>>>> use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically >>>>> illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In >>>>> addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of >>>>> predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it >>>>> is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used >>>>> as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a >>>>> host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to >>>>> advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine >>>>> your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities >>>>> . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote >>>>> to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It >>>>> is not just practical. It is the only moral choice! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early >>>>> and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 >>>>> to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >>>>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson >>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM >>>>> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure >>>>> John Moore >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my >>>>> positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to >>>>> testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the >>>>> death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in >>>>> Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death >>>>> penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example >>>>> situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the >>>>> adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 >>>>> opposed. >>>>> >>>>> -Alicia >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < >>>>> dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be >>>>> that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended >>>>> purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to >>>>> consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected >>>>> official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the >>>>> articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of >>>>> constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as >>>>> justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, >>>>> we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we >>>>> have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully >>>>> are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for >>>>> the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all >>>>> principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent >>>>> example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing >>>>> political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless >>>>> of any considerations of principles and morals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to >>>>> reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The >>>>> Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly >>>>> overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death >>>>> penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his >>>>> personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death >>>>> penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my >>>>> testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said >>>>> that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are >>>>> overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of >>>>> no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death >>>>> penalty. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School >>>>> classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his >>>>> constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three >>>>> to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect >>>>> his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked >>>>> Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following >>>>> passionate testimony: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political >>>>> football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical >>>>> questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death >>>>> penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your >>>>> conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.” >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” >>>>> for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification >>>>> for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to >>>>> say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles >>>>> but also to our personal principles. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >>>>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson >>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM >>>>> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure >>>>> John Moore >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in >>>>> question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this >>>>> motion. >>>>> >>>>> Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the >>>>> power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead >>>>> of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world >>>>> difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm. >>>>> >>>>> IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency >>>>> in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes >>>>> in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of >>>>> being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I >>>>> also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage >>>>> organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a >>>>> public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as >>>>> party officials? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have several issues with this motion. I particularly >>>>> appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have >>>>> had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. >>>>> I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his >>>>> position to us. We should get it straight from him. >>>>> >>>>> I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. >>>>> "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? >>>>> We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely >>>>> agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I >>>>> probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. >>>>> Etc. >>>>> >>>>> Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that >>>>> same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed >>>>> that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in >>>>> May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership >>>>> certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that >>>>> doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure >>>>> Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or >>>>> even the LP. >>>>> >>>>> The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, >>>>> so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him >>>>> return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC >>>>> going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal >>>>> elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about >>>>> starting such a trend. >>>>> >>>>> If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that >>>>> decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. >>>>> I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive. >>>>> >>>>> -Alicia >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson < >>>>> agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We have an electronic mail ballot. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at >>>>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* >>>>> *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, >>>>> Goldstein, Redpath >>>>> >>>>> *Motion:* >>>>> >>>>> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who >>>>> in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has >>>>> during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days >>>>> to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More >>>>> Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far >>>>> successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to >>>>> finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, >>>>> indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and >>>>> >>>>> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in >>>>> Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these >>>>> egregious votes; and >>>>> >>>>> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry >>>>> that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat >>>>> parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of >>>>> conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, >>>>> to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; >>>>> >>>>> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee >>>>> hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax >>>>> increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which >>>>> the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward >>>>> be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party >>>>> with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. >>>>> >>>>> -Alicia >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> > > -- > *In Liberty,* > *Caryn Ann Harlos* > Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, > Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. > Harlos@LP.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org');> > Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado > <http://www.lpcolorado.org> > Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus > <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business@hq.lp.org');> > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','VoteVohra@gmail.com');> (301) 320-3634

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business@hq.lp.org');> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business@hq.lp.org');> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business@hq.lp.org');> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org');> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org');> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Lnc-business@hq.lp.org');> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

As far as censure outside the organization? First we do not know if he is a national member. If he isn't - shame on each of us who voted for not insisting on it. Fool me once... However - he identified as Libertarian and sought the support of our affiliate. That places him in a relationship to the Libertarian Party and our agenda. And he voluntarily received our financial support. If not a member it isn't an intra-society disciplinary proceeding-and it wasn't my intent to be precisely that but to function as public statement of disapproval which we are certainly entitled to - and I would say - obligated to - make. By analogy - a state affiliate could censure a national candidate- even though that national candidate is not a member of the state affiliate. There are common connections, goals, and identifications. Analogously, this is a member of our state affiliate with common connections, goals, and identifications- with the further issue that we have given funds and funds were accepted. The whole tone and tenor of that meeting for the contribution was that he joined our cause - and many of us strongly stated he use the word Libertarian on his page to identify (and he did at that time). It certainly was not the tenor and argument that this was some unrelated outsider. We entered into a relationship when we offered, and he accepted, funds. If we deem this then to be something we can't speak on in this manner future votes or the establishment of a committee to spend future monies will be seriously prejudiced because I certainly - and I imagine others - will not be eager to give away member money while being squeamish about accountability. On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

Whitney I understand.

But you say you think a request for restitution is appropriate.

And that is what is done in this resolution.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','carynannharlos@gmail.com');>> wrote:

...

Alicia,

And that is an absolutely disjunctive comparison.

Thank you for stating that it is not anything that I have done here.

I will respond in another thread as stated. This isn't the first time member input has been discouraged and made unwelcome - thus important enough to pursue in its own thread.

I will post a link to the Google groups topic for future readers as it will in one sense touch upon here - the false equivalency.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Caryn Ann,

I have not alleged that the email campaign tactic has been used on THIS motion. Mike Shipley is the only person outside the LNC who has contacted me on this issue, and my comments about that tactic were made before I received his email.

I am comparing a tactic that has been used to try to influence the LNC on other topics with what we're being told by others was allegedly Assemblyman Moore's motivation.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Alicia, thank you for your thorough reply. Though one point touched upon this Moore situation, in all I think it a tangent we both went on, so I will respond in a fresh thread so as not to distract here.

But I need to get something really clear here as it has been alleged two times, and it is not correct. *I categorically did not have any email campaign to have anyone write anyone about this motion, * so I would appreciate it if that was not said. A member wrote me prior to my motion, and I advised him to contact his regional representative as he was not in my region. After that, region 1 members indicated their desire, and I heard from a Nevada board member. All I did on this, is what I do on *every single item of business before the LNC*, I post a notice in several groups with a link to the discussion. My encouragements for members to write *are general and ongoing and not tied to any specific matter of business* with few exceptions - those being the Motion to Rescind as their rights were being violated.

I have been at outreach and sign waving all day. I will respond to your email later tonight in a new thread when I am refreshed.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Whitney, it was a request, specially worded so in the resolution, not a demand.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Joshua Katz < planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I think it's an interesting question as to whether or not the motion as presented is divisible, and I'm unclear as to the proposed division. Regardless, the bigger issue is that it is basically impossible to handle division of the question by email ballot, leading me to believe it is out of order on an email ballot.

Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Whitney Bilyeu < whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote:

> Alicia, > > Is it appropriate/allowable to move to divide this motion? > 1) Censure > 2) Call for refund/reimbursement/restitution > > As for the rest of the language in the last two paragraphs, I could > do without it. > > Whitney Bilyeu > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I vote yes. >> >> A libertarian elected official's duty is to cut government. That's >> it. Not to support the tyranny of a misled majority. >> >> -Arvin >> >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < >> carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap> >>> >>> I agree completely. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so >>>> until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore. >>>> >>>> Brett C. Bittner >>>> >>>> Region 3 Representative >>>> Libertarian National Committee >>>> >>>> brett.bittner@lp.org >>>> 317.643.2566 >>>> >>>> **This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos. >>>> >>>> On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" < >>>> goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I vote Yes. >>>>> >>>>> This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on >>>>> principle and to make >>>>> a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our >>>>> history and Mr. Moore >>>>> failed miserably. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < >>>>> patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I vote yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Patrick McKnight >>>>>> Region 8 Rep >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" < >>>>>> dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a >>>>>>> separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on >>>>>>> the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 >>>>>>> overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral >>>>>>> implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, >>>>>>> by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the >>>>>>> LP in Nebraska: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> “Mr. Secretary, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE >>>>>>> 68142 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and >>>>>>> Regional Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the >>>>>>> retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by >>>>>>> the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians >>>>>>> overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for >>>>>>> practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally >>>>>>> aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation >>>>>>> that support the death penalty. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the >>>>>>> indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the >>>>>>> financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and >>>>>>> suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice >>>>>>> and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure >>>>>>> because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the >>>>>>> perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral >>>>>>> use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically >>>>>>> illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In >>>>>>> addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of >>>>>>> predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it >>>>>>> is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used >>>>>>> as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a >>>>>>> host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to >>>>>>> advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine >>>>>>> your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, >>>>>>> vote to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in >>>>>>> Nebraska. It is not just practical. It is the only moral choice! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote >>>>>>> early and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain >>>>>>> LB268 to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson >>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM >>>>>>> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure >>>>>>> John Moore >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my >>>>>>> positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to >>>>>>> testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the >>>>>>> death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in >>>>>>> Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death >>>>>>> penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example >>>>>>> situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the >>>>>>> adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 >>>>>>> opposed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alicia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < >>>>>>> dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be >>>>>>> that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended >>>>>>> purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to >>>>>>> consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected >>>>>>> official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the >>>>>>> articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of >>>>>>> constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as >>>>>>> justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, >>>>>>> we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we >>>>>>> have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully >>>>>>> are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for >>>>>>> the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all >>>>>>> principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent >>>>>>> example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing >>>>>>> political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless >>>>>>> of any considerations of principles and morals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to >>>>>>> reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The >>>>>>> Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly >>>>>>> overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death >>>>>>> penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his >>>>>>> personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death >>>>>>> penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my >>>>>>> testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said >>>>>>> that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are >>>>>>> overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of >>>>>>> no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death >>>>>>> penalty. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School >>>>>>> classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his >>>>>>> constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three >>>>>>> to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect >>>>>>> his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked >>>>>>> Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following >>>>>>> passionate testimony: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political >>>>>>> football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical >>>>>>> questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the >>>>>>> death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine >>>>>>> your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities >>>>>>> .” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the >>>>>>> constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral >>>>>>> justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what >>>>>>> Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s >>>>>>> principles but also to our personal principles. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~David Pratt Demarest >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >>>>>>> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson >>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM >>>>>>> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure >>>>>>> John Moore >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in >>>>>>> question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this >>>>>>> motion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the >>>>>>> power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead >>>>>>> of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world >>>>>>> difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his >>>>>>> constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel >>>>>>> about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. >>>>>>> What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's >>>>>>> why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other >>>>>>> LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we >>>>>>> be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the >>>>>>> same thing as party officials? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have several issues with this motion. I particularly >>>>>>> appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have >>>>>>> had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. >>>>>>> I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his >>>>>>> position to us. We should get it straight from him. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. >>>>>>> "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? >>>>>>> We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely >>>>>>> agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I >>>>>>> probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. >>>>>>> Etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that >>>>>>> same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed >>>>>>> that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in >>>>>>> May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership >>>>>>> certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that >>>>>>> doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure >>>>>>> Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or >>>>>>> even the LP. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured >>>>>>> him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make >>>>>>> him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the >>>>>>> LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every >>>>>>> local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I >>>>>>> am concerned about starting such a trend. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind >>>>>>> that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him >>>>>>> again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alicia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson < >>>>>>> agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have an electronic mail ballot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at >>>>>>> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* >>>>>>> *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, >>>>>>> Goldstein, Redpath >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Motion:* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who >>>>>>> in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has >>>>>>> during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days >>>>>>> to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More >>>>>>> Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far >>>>>>> successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to >>>>>>> finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, >>>>>>> indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in >>>>>>> Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these >>>>>>> egregious votes; and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry >>>>>>> that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat >>>>>>> parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of >>>>>>> conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, >>>>>>> to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National >>>>>>> Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support >>>>>>> of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution >>>>>>> which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to >>>>>>> henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the >>>>>>> political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to >>>>>>> remain a Libertarian. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Alicia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Lnc-business mailing list >>>>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> *In Liberty,* >>> *Caryn Ann Harlos* >>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, >>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. >>> Harlos@LP.org >>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado >>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org> >>> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus >>> <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lnc-business mailing list >>> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Arvin Vohra >> >> www.VoteVohra.com >> VoteVohra@gmail.com >> (301) 320-3634 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org');> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

I'm pretty sure you cannot divide a motion once voting has started. 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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty@gmail.com> wrote:

I think it's an interesting question as to whether or not the motion as presented is divisible, and I'm unclear as to the proposed division. Regardless, the bigger issue is that it is basically impossible to handle division of the question by email ballot, leading me to believe it is out of order on an email ballot.

Joshua A. Katz Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Alicia,

Is it appropriate/allowable to move to divide this motion? 1) Censure 2) Call for refund/reimbursement/restitution

As for the rest of the language in the last two paragraphs, I could do without it.

Whitney Bilyeu

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Arvin Vohra <votevohra@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

A libertarian elected official's duty is to cut government. That's it. Not to support the tyranny of a misled majority.

-Arvin

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos < carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap>

I agree completely.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org> wrote:

...

I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee

brett.bittner@lp.org 317.643.2566

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote Yes.

This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on principle and to make a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history and Mr. Moore failed miserably.

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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:

> I vote yes. > > Patrick McKnight > Region 8 Rep > > On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" < > dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: > >> Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a >> separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on >> the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 >> overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral >> implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, >> by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the >> LP in Nebraska: >> >> >> >> “Mr. Secretary, >> >> >> >> David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142 >> >> >> >> I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional >> Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. >> >> >> >> I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the >> retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by >> the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians >> overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for >> practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally >> aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that >> support the death penalty. >> >> >> >> Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the >> indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the >> financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and >> suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice >> and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure >> because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the >> perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral >> use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically >> illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case. >> >> >> >> I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In >> addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of >> predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it >> is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used >> as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host >> of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate >> the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine >> your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities. >> >> >> >> To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to >> “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is >> not just practical. It is the only moral choice! >> >> >> >> I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and >> have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to >> ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!” >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson >> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM >> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John >> Moore >> >> >> >> DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions >> with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a >> private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty >> and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across >> the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD >> >> >> Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death >> penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example >> situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the >> adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 >> opposed. >> >> -Alicia >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < >> dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that >> merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to >> express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s >> salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to >> represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by >> Caryn and Alicia. >> >> >> >> I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of >> constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as >> justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, >> we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we >> have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully >> are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for >> the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all >> principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent >> example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing >> political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless >> of any considerations of principles and morals. >> >> >> >> Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate >> the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, >> with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode >> Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. >> Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal >> fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty >> that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I >> mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I >> was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly >> against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no >> Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death >> penalty. >> >> >> >> Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School >> classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his >> constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three >> to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his >> constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked >> Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following >> passionate testimony: >> >> >> >> “… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political >> football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical >> questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death >> penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your >> conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.” >> >> >> >> The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” >> for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification >> for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to >> say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles >> but also to our personal principles. >> >> >> >> ~David Pratt Demarest >> >> >> >> *From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson >> *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM >> *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John >> Moore >> >> >> >> I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, >> but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion. >> >> Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power >> of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of >> passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world >> difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm. >> >> IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in >> hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in >> hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of >> being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I >> also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage >> organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a >> public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as >> party officials? >> >> >> >> I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate >> Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a >> conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I >> don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his >> position to us. We should get it straight from him. >> >> I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey >> a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're >> discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree >> with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I >> probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. >> Etc. >> >> Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same >> group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that >> he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, >> our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership >> certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that >> doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure >> Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or >> even the LP. >> >> The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so >> what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return >> the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to >> become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected >> official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting >> such a trend. >> >> If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that >> decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. >> I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive. >> >> -Alicia >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson < >> agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We have an electronic mail ballot. >> >> >> >> *Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at >> 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* >> *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, >> Goldstein, Redpath >> >> *Motion:* >> >> Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in >> January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during >> the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to >> raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" >> tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far >> successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to >> finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, >> indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and >> >> Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada >> have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious >> votes; and >> >> Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that >> while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties >> who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we >> do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue >> voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; >> >> Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee >> hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax >> increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which >> the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward >> be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party >> with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. >> >> -Alicia >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Lnc-business mailing list >> Lnc-business@hq.lp.org >> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Lnc-business mailing list > Lnc-business@hq.lp.org > http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org > >

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- Arvin Vohra

www.VoteVohra.com VoteVohra@gmail.com (301) 320-3634

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Thank you Caryn. ___________________ Sean O’Toole sean@kingfieldcapital.com (816) 739-2737 On 22 Oct 2016, at 12:16, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap>

I agree completely.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','brett.bittner@lp.org');>> wrote:

...

I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee

brett.bittner@lp.org 317.643.2566

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote Yes.

This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on principle and to make a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history and Mr. Moore failed miserably.

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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep

On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

...

Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in Nebraska:

“Mr. Secretary,

David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142

I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case.

I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.

To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is not just practical. It is the only moral choice!

I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!”

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

I would prefer that any action we take to be substantive, and not just symbolic. Does anyone have the answers to Alicia's previously raised questions regarding censure of someone not part of the organization calling for the censure. I would also like to point out that 'requesting' that the funds be returned is not enforceable. On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote:

Edit - we are involved because we *gave* money given to us in trust.

You are very welcome Sean.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Sean O'Toole <sean@kingfieldcapital.com> wrote:

...

Thank you Caryn. ------------------------------

Sean O’Toole sean@kingfieldcapital.com (816) 739-2737 On 22 Oct 2016, at 12:16, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap>

I agree completely.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org> wrote:

...

I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee

brett.bittner@lp.org 317.643.2566

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote Yes.

This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on principle and to make a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history and Mr. Moore failed miserably.

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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight < patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I vote yes.

Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep

On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

...

Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in Nebraska:

“Mr. Secretary,

David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142

I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally aware of *NO* Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case.

I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.

To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is not just practical. It is the only moral choice!

I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!”

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest < dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty *three to one* with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a *political football* to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Alicia Mattson *Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.* *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Whitney, I agree with you on the preferability of requesting rather than demanding restitution, since we presumably have no legal grounds for making such a demand, and note that the resolution under consideration does provide a formal request for restitution. That makes it substantive, even though we are not setting forth any formal penalties for a failure to return the funds. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Oct 22, 2016, at 1:05 PM, Whitney Bilyeu wrote:

For the record...with regard to my previous comment:

While requesting a refund is not enforceable, demanding one is unfavorable. We did not, to my knowledge, have Assemblyman Moore sign any contract upon receipt of said funds; therefore, demanding the money back would imply that we had an official agreement of expectations and promises...we didn't.

I do not oppose making a formal request for restitution, then any future engagements with the Assemblyman would hinge on his response to said request.

Whitney Bilyeu Region 7 Representative

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76@gmail.com> wrote: I would prefer that any action we take to be substantive, and not just symbolic.

Does anyone have the answers to Alicia's previously raised questions regarding censure of someone not part of the organization calling for the censure. I would also like to point out that 'requesting' that the funds be returned is not enforceable.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <carynannharlos@gmail.com> wrote: Edit - we are involved because we *gave* money given to us in trust.

You are very welcome Sean.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Sean O'Toole <sean@kingfieldcapital.com> wrote: Thank you Caryn.

Sean O’Toole sean@kingfieldcapital.com (816) 739-2737 On 22 Oct 2016, at 12:16, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Sean - hats off to you. <slow clap>

I agree completely.

On Saturday, October 22, 2016, Brett Bittner <brett.bittner@lp.org> wrote: I intend to vote on this matter, however I do not intend to do so until we've heard from Assemblyman Moore.

Brett C. Bittner

Region 3 Representative Libertarian National Committee

brett.bittner@lp.org 317.643.2566

**This message sent from my phone. Please excuse any typos.

On Oct 22, 2016 08:44, "Sam Goldstein" <goldsteinatlarge@gmail.com> wrote: I vote Yes.

This would have been one of the best opportunities to vote on principle and to make a major impact on big government that the LP has had in our history and Mr. Moore failed miserably.

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 Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Patrick McKnight <patrick.joseph.mcknight@gmail.com> wrote: I vote yes.

Patrick McKnight Region 8 Rep

On Oct 22, 2016 8:14 AM, "David Demarest" <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: Thank you Alicia. I agree that the death penalty deserves a separate email thread of its own. I also was not aware of the numbers on the death penalty plank vote. Nevertheless, I would consider 364 to 105 overwhelming but disappointingly not high enough considering the moral implications as spelled in the full text of my testimony as follows, which, by the way, turned out to be an extraordinary opportunity to publicize the LP in Nebraska:

“Mr. Secretary,

David Pratt Demarest, 10812 Park Meadow Plaza #133, Omaha, NE 68142

I am Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Nebraska and Regional Representative on the Libertarian National Committee.

I am here today as a private Nebraska citizen to support the retention of LB268 that repealed the Nebraska death penalty as confirmed by the override of the Governor’s veto. However, I can tell you that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the repeal of the death penalty not only for practical reasons but more importantly for moral reasons. I am personally aware of NO Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Much evidence has been presented today demonstrates the indisputable failure of the death penalty as a deterrent compounded by the financial burden it imposes on taxpayers and the extended pain and suffering it visits on victims. To add insult to injury, victims lose twice and end up revisiting the pain, anguish and suffering with no closure because of the undue focus on deterrence, punishment and vengeance on the perpetrators instead of seeking restitution for the victims. The immoral use of the death penalty to obtain false confessions was dramatically illustrated by the infamous Nebraska Beatrice 6 case.

I am here, however, to speak to the overriding moral issue. In addition to the barbaric nature of state-sponsored killing, the risk of predictable executions of some innocents is beyond morally unacceptable, it is unconscionable! Further, the possibility of the death penalty being used as a political football to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.

To voters in the audience, I urge you vote your conscience, vote to “Retain” LB268 and vote to uphold the death penalty ban in Nebraska. It is not just practical. It is the only moral choice!

I have been selected for poll worker duty. I have to vote early and have already voted. I am proud to tell you that I voted to retain LB268 to ban the death penalty from Nebraska. I hope you will too!”

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Mattson Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 3:15 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

DD>> In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty. <<DD

Not to change the subject or start a debate on the death penalty...just addressing a factual detail that came up in the example situation. At the national convention there was a counted vote on the adoption of our death penalty plank, and there were 364 in favor and 105 opposed.

-Alicia

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:44 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

I will delay my vote until we hear from John Moore. It may be that merely offering the motion to censure will achieve our intended purpose to express our outrage. In the meantime, however, we need to consider Ken’s salient point about taking into account an elected official’s duty to represent the views of his constituents and the articulate responses by Caryn and Alicia.

I must say I am bothered by the reference to the 60% of constituents favoring the position that Assemblyman Moore voted for as justification for his misguided votes. As Caryn has correctly pointed out, we have a duty to reflect the principles of our party. More importantly, we have a duty to reflect our personal principles of conscience that hopefully are reasonably consistent with our party’s principles. Even allowing for the fact that no two Libertarians are going to agree on all details of all principles, Assemblyman Moore’s votes go beyond the pale. Here is a recent example from my personal experience on the cronyism evils of basing political positions and votes on the consensus of constituents regardless of any considerations of principles and morals.

Last week I testified against the Nebraska referendum to reinstate the death penalty at a legally mandated District 2 hearing. The Unicameral, with the support of Libertarian Senator Laura Ebke, narrowly overrode Governor Ricketts’ veto of the bill that repealed the death penalty. Governor Ricketts then used a “substantial” contribution from his personal fortune to sponsor the ballot referendum to reinstate the death penalty that was the subject of the hearing. In the introduction to my testimony, I mentioned my positions with the LNC and the LPNE and I said that while I was there to testify as a private citizen, Libertarians are overwhelmingly against the death penalty and that I was personally aware of no Libertarians in Nebraska or across the nation that support the death penalty.

Republican State Senator Merv Riepe, a Ralston High School classmate of mine, testified that his opinion poll showed that his constituents favored the reinstatement of the death penalty three to one with the clear inference that he intended to reflect his constituents’ views [regardless of any moral considerations]. I looked Senator Riepe squarely in the eye and responded with the following passionate testimony:

“… the possibility of the death penalty being used as a political football to obtain reelection votes raises a host of ethical questions. To those who might be tempted to advocate the death penalty for political purposes, you need to reexamine your conscience and your political, personal and moral priorities.”

The point is that reflecting the “consensus of the constituents” for obvious reelection purposes is not an acceptable or moral justification for Assemblyman Moore’s two egregious votes. Let’s see what Moore has to say but keep in mind that our duty is not only to our party’s principles but also to our personal principles.

~David Pratt Demarest

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Alicia Mattson Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:19 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion.

Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm.

IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials?

I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him.

I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc.

Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP.

The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend.

If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive.

-Alicia

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

Motion:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

We, as a party, as a national committee, as a group of intellectually honest individuals, are abhorred at the actions of a politician who we put our faith and our financial backing into. Representative Moore offered a tantalizing chance to have one of "us" at the table in a state house. This opportunity rarely occurs. But like so many times before, we feel we have been played by someone who took advantage of an eager wallflower who just wanted to be asked to dance. After humiliating us in front of our peers, we just want to key his car and make sure he can never do this again. Why stop at censure? Why not immediately kick any elected "libertarian" official out of the party for voting against anything in our platform? I hate the term "crony capitalism" much like the term "fair share" because it generalizes to the degree of being devoid of any real substance. These are the terms used by torch carrying mobs to incite passion. When we point out specific wrongs like the effect a hotel tax has on transient groups, we assign real harm and moral morass to a specific action. I believe our party has a very high bar for not only principles but also character. The other two major parties, at this point in time, show no bar at all in the acceptance of two national candidates who will do or say anything to get elected. I have been a city councilman for 6 years and have had libertarian values all of my life. I have made protest votes at certain times and I have voted statist in more than a few situations. There were difficult votes that I stayed true to my values, especially on private property rights. Every elected needs to make these decisions on their own. I had a conversation with John yesterday and after hearing his side I told him I would probably have voted differently than he did. Whether or not he gets re-elected, he has to live with his vote. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to engage with not only Representative Moore, but with other disgruntled "duoplicrats". Remember, when you take away the ability to fail, you take away the ability to succeed. Let's give him a chance to succeed. I would hope he is wiser from his experience. I vote "no" on censure. Jeff Hewitt Representative Region 4 -----Original Message----- From: Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com To: lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Sent: Fri, Oct 21, 2016 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore I am as upset as the rest of you about the two votes in question, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to vote yes on this motion. Particularly on the stadium vote, Assemblyman Moore held the power of the deciding vote. Had he voted no, it would have failed instead of passing. We had a Libertarian in a position to make a big real-world difference, and it didn't happen. Facepalm. IF it's true that his motivation was to play to his constituency in hopes of getting re-elected, I wonder how he will feel about the votes in hindsight in the event that he is not re-elected. What's the point of being there if you can't vote your conscience? That's why on the LNC I also vote the way I think I ought to vote even if other LNC members stage organized email campaigns from their friends. Should we be offended at a public official playing to his constituents if we do the same thing as party officials? I have several issues with this motion. I particularly appreciate Mr. Moellman's questions, and I think we probably should have had a conversation with Mr. Moore before we flung a motion into the wind. I don't think it's sufficient to just hear how other people represent his position to us. We should get it straight from him. I am not thrilled about the wording in this resolution. "...convey a strong message to all and sundry..." ? Who talks like that? We're discouraging others from switching to the LP until they completely agree with us? With which of us? Because we don't all agree, either. I probably would have added that his vote was effectively the deciding vote. Etc. Censure is an action taken by a group against a member of that same group. Mr. Moore is not a member of the LNC. Have we even confirmed that he's a member of the national party? As of the national convention in May, our records did not yet indicate he had signed our membership certification. We know he switched his party registration in NV, but that doesn't make him a member of the national party. We wouldn't censure Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton because they're not members of the LNC or even the LP. The state affiliate that nominated him has already censured him, so what does this accomplish for the LNC to pile on? We can't make him return the money. Is it just to make ourselves feel better? Is the LNC going to become the purity police that monitors every local/state/federal elected official and passes resolutions about them? I am concerned about starting such a trend. If we hadn't already donated the funds, I'd vote to rescind that decision. That ship has sailed. I wouldn't vote to donate to him again. I'm not certain that this motion accomplishes anything productive. -Alicia On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Alicia Mattson <agmattson@gmail.com> wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath Motion: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization. If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize. Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand. Ken On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? *Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes.* With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard.

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org>> wrote:

Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

* Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP?

* Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

* In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway.

* In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

* I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

* Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay.

*If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

...

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*_Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. _* _Co-Sponsors:_ Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

_Motion:_

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@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@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>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us. If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip. If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation. That's pretty much where I'm at on it. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote:

We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY AND A MILLION TIMES YES. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. --

IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

* Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? * Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

* In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. * In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

* I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay.

If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

Motion:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

-- IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] Links: ------ [1] http://www.lpcolorado.org/ [2] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/ [3] http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [4] http://www.lpcolorado.org [5] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org

Ken, I would agree that censure of Libertarian government officials that transgress our principles is not a good long-term strategy for reasons I have pointed out earlier in this discussion. The problem, however, is that John Moore is one of the top three Libertarian government officials in the country and we rewarded his party switch with a $10,000 campaign donation. From a Libertarian perspective, Assemblyman Moore’s behavior has high visibility. We clearly would be remiss in our duties if we did not respond to Moore’s transgressions. Censure of Moore’s actions is appropriate provided that we do not use censure as an excuse for not personally discussing the issue with John and conveying our disappointment. Those personal conversations are even more important than the motion to censure. The goal of the LP is to affect change in the direction of freedom. If we attempt to get Libertarians elected to all levels of government to move governance toward freedom and then turn around and ignore elected Libertarians turning into crony capitalists by avoiding alienating their constituents in their efforts to get reelected, we indeed have a problem. Worrying about the LP being taken over by insincere retreads from other parties during this election cycle while we are allowing our party to be eviscerated from within seems like the height of folly to me. True, we need to respect the independence of Libertarian officials but that does not negate our obligation to advise Libertarian government officials of our concerns with their actions. Ken, thank you for conveying your concerns directly to Assemblyman Moore. Thoughts? Celebrate Life, Set the Bar High and LIVE FREE! The Invisible Hand of Self-Interest is Mightier Than the Sword of Government! ~David Pratt Demarest http://www.lpne.org secretary@lpne.org <mailto:secretary@lpne.org> dpdemarest@centurylink.net <mailto:dpdemarest@centurylink.net> david.demarest@firstdata.com <mailto:david.demarest@firstdata.com> Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 Office: 402-222-7207 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Caryn Ann Harlos Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 8:18 PM To: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty. So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide. That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at. Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us. If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip. If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation. That's pretty much where I'm at on it. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote: We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization. If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize. Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand. Ken On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken, I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings." You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements. And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against. The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew? As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Fellow colleagues, I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message. It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps. I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly. With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today. Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area. I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear. I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.) Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005. Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members. Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here? * Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? * Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing? In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being. We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision. * In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. * In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills. We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive? Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm? Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party? So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary. What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish? Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well. So, in sum, I find as follows: * I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization. Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath Motion: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection. Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ken.moellman@lpky.org');>> wrote:

Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party.

This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong.

A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer.

I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term.

Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate. ---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty.

So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide.

That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at.

Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying.

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

...

If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us.

If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.

If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation.

That's pretty much where I'm at on it.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote:

We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? *Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes.* With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. -- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

...

Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

- Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? - Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

- In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. - In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

- I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. - I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. - I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. - I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. - I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. - I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. - Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

* Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. *If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. * *Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

Ken, Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

...

On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection.

Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard.

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

...

On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote: Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party.

This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong.

A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer.

I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term.

Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty.

So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide.

That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at.

Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying.

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

...

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us.

If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.

If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation.

That's pretty much where I'm at on it.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote:

We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

...

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote: Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay.

If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

Motion:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Daniel, A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time. Screenshots attached. Ken --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote:

Ken, Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection.

Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard.

--

IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2]

On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party.

This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong.

A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer.

I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term.

Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty.

So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide.

That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at.

Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying.

--

IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us.

If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.

If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation.

That's pretty much where I'm at on it.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote: We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY AND A MILLION TIMES YES. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. --

IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

* Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? * Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

* In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. * In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

* I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay.

If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

Motion:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

-- IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] -- IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5] -- IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] Links: ------ [1] http://www.lpcolorado.org/ [2] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/ [3] http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [4] http://www.lpcolorado.org [5] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org

If there was discussion prior to the motion being made, then I was not privy to that nor can I speak to it. I do know that a bunch of votes were cast before we ever heard from Assemblyman Moore. That is not in dispute. I'm actually pretty amazed that Assemblyman Moore sent information to a jury that seems ready to convict regardless of his input. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-31 09:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken. You presume a great deal.

--

IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2]

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Daniel,

A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time.

Screenshots attached.

Ken --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote: Ken, Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection.

Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard.

--

IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2]

On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party.

This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong.

A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer.

I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term.

Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty.

So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide.

That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at.

Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying.

--

IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us.

If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.

If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation.

That's pretty much where I'm at on it.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote: We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY AND A MILLION TIMES YES. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. --

IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [1] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [2]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

* Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? * Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

* In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. * In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

* I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay.

If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

Motion:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

-- IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] -- IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5] -- IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3]

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [3] -- IN LIBERTY, CARYN ANN HARLOS Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado [4] Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus [5] Links: ------ [1] http://www.lpcolorado.org/ [2] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/ [3] http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org [4] http://www.lpcolorado.org [5] http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org

This email is likewise not my vote. I was going to include my vote here, but discovering I have more to say here than I expected, in response to Joshua as well as on the motion and the larger context surrounding it, I'll spare the secretary trying to keep track of a vote buried in a long post, and email my vote separately. I'm with Joshua in rejecting the "libertarian binary" that someone either is a libertarian, or they aren't. Life is more complicated and nuanced than that. John Moore making a couple of bad decisions doesn't make him "the enemy". People can and do change, and censure is not the death penalty or banishment for life. Nevertheless, Joshua is also right that Moore's vote to subsidize the billionaire stadium owner to the tune of $750 million in taxpayer money has "grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot," and I agree he should be criticized for it. Beyond that, I feel it is both right and appropriate that he pay a political price that outweighs any political benefit he reaped by casting the anti-freedom votes in question. Yes, the Nevada LP has censured him. And if they hadn't, I'm sure we'd be hearing in his defense that since his state affailiate didn't see fit to censure him, why should we? Obviously one answer to that question, which still applies in present circumstances, is that we gave him $10,000 and he didn't live up to our expectations for candidates toward whom we are generous with LP members' money. Joshua said we need a system that "incentivizes Libertarian officeholders in such a way that there natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like," and David made much the same point previously in referring to this resolution as a less than ideal instrument of "blunt force" (not force in the libertarian sense obviously, but I understand what he meant). I too would love to see us come up with a better approach to incentivizing Libertarian candidates, officeholders, and other party leaders to support freedom. But unless/until we do, I think we must apply the imperfect incentives we have available to us. It is vital to our sustainability as a libertarian party that those who represent us understand Libertarians will not take serious ideological betrayals sitting down, so that this enters into their political calculations and makes such betrayals politically unattractive. If the political advantage that an officeholder can gain by voting against liberty outweighs any political penalty that we impose for such votes, and we lack the resources to out-bribe the statists in getting the officeholder to vote for liberty, the problem is obvious. In this case, bribing Moore to vote the right way is not even an option, because the votes have already been cast and he can't go back and change them now even if he wanted to. Notably though, his letter does not express shame or regret for his votes, but on the contrary defiantly asserts that he stands by them 100%. I read his explanation for why he voted the way he did, and did not find the various rationales expressed therein convincing. Frankly I see little moral distinction between casting a vote to allow other politicians to raise taxes, and voting to raise them directly. The idea of siding with a majority of one's constituents sounds good in the abstract, and might be appropriate in some cases, such as if the legislature were simply deciding what color to paint the stadium and decided to go with the color(s) favored by the community. But what if you're in office and a majority of your constituents support reinstating the military draft, or deporting 11 million people, or even sending undesirables to the gas chamber? I certainly hope no Libertarian would vote for any of those things, but once you place the opinions of constituents above doing the right thing, there's no theoretical limit on how far one could go in acting contrary to libertarian principles. Moore's admonition to people who find his stadium vote reprehensible to never go see a game there, never patronize any business that may be built in the area as the result of the stadium being built, etc., is a weak argument. Getting some restitution for the money that's been stolen from you by getting some use out of the facilities built with the stolen money is in no way comparable to actually stealing the money. Joshua says that to be a public official is to have the right and obligation to make the final decision. Well, yes and no. Yes when it comes to how one votes in the legislature, of course. But the public may have something further to say about that vote, either at the ballot box or elsewhere, and we are part of the public. Contrary to what part of John's letter seems to suggest, censure, public pressure, and so on are entirely compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle. Ultimately, I think it's possible to get to the heart of the issue and reach the right conclusion with a couple simple questions: • Would you hesitate to forcefully condemn a vote like this if it had been made by a Republican or Democrat? • Do you think we should hold Libertarian candidates and officeholders to a higher standard than duopoly candidates, or a lower standard? I firmly believe we must hold our candidates (including ourselves when we run for office) to a higher standard. If we do not, then there is no reason for the public to see us as any different from the cartel parties. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Oct 31, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Joshua Katz wrote:

I have, also, been thinking about this. This email is not my vote; it is a collection of thoughts on topics raised by this question.

The Big Picture

The purpose of the LP is not, in my opinion, "to pursue freedom" or some variation. That's too broad, and it's the purpose of the entire freedom movement. Neither, though, is the purpose of the LP to elect candidates to office; that omits the fact that we do so for a reason. I believe our purpose is to change public policy in a libertarian direction, and to do so specifically by electing candidates to office (or otherwise getting them there).

This is why it is particularly upsetting to us when Libertarians get into office (or, in this case, come into existence while in office) but then do not move public policy in that direction. It is an insult to our very reason for being.

Mr. Moore should, in my view, be criticized for that. I reject the "libertarian binary" and do not ask if he is a real libertarian - I ask what he's done. In this instance, he's grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot. That doesn't mean that he's now "the enemy" - life is not actually like a movie where everyone must be a hero or a villain. The primary motivator of my libertarianism is the perception that our system is far too punitive and never gives (some) people another chance after a mistake. Let's not be like that. Mr. Moore is not Anakin crossing over to Sheldon Adelson's Empire. He's a legislator who made a vote which we find outrageous, wrong, and harmful. If he had vote the other way, others would have found his vote outrageous, wrong, and harmful. To be a public official is to bear responsibility for your actions in a way that your supporters do not, which grants the right and obligation to make the final decision. He made his decision. We disagree.

We must remember, at the same time, that people are not automatons, and libertarian policy answers in a libertarian world are not always clear. In this case, I agree - it was clear. It will not always be, and we should be prepared for that. A successful party will be unable to keep track of the multitudes of votes cast by its legislators. A party simply cannot afford to be cast into such a state of panic as this over a single vote by one member of a state legislature.

While the LP itself does not do so, I note that many libertarian organizations regularly criticize legislators for party line voting, when it suits them. When the people of a legislator's district desire something more libertarian than their party, the legislator will regularly be called out and criticized for not representing his district. We tend to attach meaning to the fact that a large majority desires an end to our endless wars, opposed the bailouts, and so on.

My bottom line: we need a system that generates, promotes, and incentivizes Libertarian officeholders, in such a way that there are natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like. We need enough faith in Libertarian officeholders that we can disagree with votes in good faith, which means we need libertarian-enough officeholders for that to work.

Mr. Moore's Privacy

Within the LP, the same logic applies to us. We bear responsibility for our actions. We chose to give him $10,000, he didn't force us to do so. Our members, as I've said elsewhere, have the right to such information as they need to judge our performance, so that they can toss us out as desired. Mr. Moore is not a leader of this party, is not an LNC member, and his letter regarding his reasons for voting does not fall into that category. He did not lose his right to communicate privately with those who choose to communicate with him when he donated money to him. People have every right to send communications which they label confidential; recipients have the right to accept those terms or to not read the communication. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Moore's request for confidentiality; if LNC members do not wish to have their votes influenced by a confidential message, they have every right not to read it.

Party Governance

Ever since this vote, the LNC communications list has increased in volume. I am not critical of that, but I do wonder why the vote cast by a Nevada legislator is so much more capable of bringing us to life than governing our own party. Our membership has grown as a result of disgust with our opponents and enthusiasm over our Presidential ticket: what is our plan to retain those members? What is our plan to bring them into the fray, so to speak, and turn our new roof into strong walls?

Donations are up, and we've done the accounting for the money we needed to do as a housekeeping measure. If we cover the money we should have spent last year on the mortgage but do not spend down more, we'll have a lot of extra cash on hand compared to where we expected to be. As a reminder, one of the arguments for buying an office rather than renting was improved cash flow in election years. So what new programs will we be performing with the money? What new services will we be offering, to add value beyond moving money from state to state? We can decide that there's nothing we need to do to strengthen this party that would profit from an improved cash flow position, and just take all the unexpected cash on hand to pay down the mortgage; maybe that's the right decision.

Not all categories of donations are up, though. Recurring gifts are lower than budgeted. Do we have a plan for increasing recurring gifts, or for dealing with the likely results of our current position being more of a one-time windfall than a sustainable increase?

This all brings me to a recurring point: boards have important functions. They provide leadership at the highest strategic levels. They provide accountability and oversight. When the board is more interested in the more exciting ideological goings-on than in minding the shop, the shop doesn't get minded.

Let's spend some of this energy on being more accountable with our funds, improving our governance structures, and developing a long-term strategic vision that will give us more state legislators than we can possibly keep track of - along with institutional incentives and other structures that will increase the chances of those legislators, without our individual intervention, voting to move public policy in a libertarian direction.

How Should Representatives Vote?

It is my view that representatives, both on the LNC and in public office, are chosen for their broadly-defined positions, their judgment, and their vision. They are not meant to simply be echos for the majority of their constituents, however defined. A good representative will sometimes go against a large majority of their constituents - the constituents retain, of course, the ultimate power of recall.

It's been mentioned on this list that Mr. Moore's constituents, at a ratio of about 60-40, favored the stadium. To me, this is not particularly helpful; legislators are supposed to vote based on their own judgment in the ultimate best interest of their constituents. In Mr. Moore's case, though, a problem arises. His voters didn't get what they expected. If the voters of a district elect a Libertarian, they know, or ought to know, what they're getting into. Even if they favor a particular government program, they should not be surprised to see their representative vote otherwise. When the voters elect a Republican, though, is it fair to say they should have expected a representative who opposes crony capitalism?

This points to the need for more home-grown elected officials. That is not to say we should reject or turn away those who, after being elected because they wish to serve, realize that the greatest way to serve the public and improve the world is to be a Libertarian. It is to say we need more of our own, and we need to take actions to get there.

We also cannot expect 100% party-line votes. Politics is a game of possibilities. Even home-grown elected Libertarians will face many incentives on each vote, and philosophy is only one. Responsible governance is another - sometimes, the ideal will have to be sacrificed for the real. Most of the time, there simply won't be a libertarian option - most questions that cross a public official's desk are perpendicular to the freedom question. The big, exciting, dramatic votes, though, do tend to have a larger freedom component than the more routine.

Modern-day liberals seem to picture that government officials have a dial behind their desks. Turn it one way and inequality increases, turn it the other and inequality decreases, and nothing else changes. They cannot imagine, then, why some officials simply refuse to turn it in the equality direction.

Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, picture a dial that determines the level of virtue in society. This virtue takes a few forms: the martial virtues, honor and respect, family values, but they tend to think they can all be increased uniformly (as though "family values" would not be impacted by sending our young people to war, for instance). Similarly, they find it astounding that anyone would turn the dial away from virtue.

Libertarians need not pretend there's a dial controlling the level of freedom - we know, better than the average liberal or conservative, about the inescapable fact of trade-offs. We know that all else does not hold equal. I've defined my libertarianism as a presumption in favor of freedom, against regulation, in favor of the individual.

It is our job to encourage the selection, growth, and election of Libertarians who can navigate those trade-offs effectively, steering the ship of state in a freedom direction without flipping the boat, keeping an eye out for icebergs. We need to do so because asking them to govern will mean trusting their judgment. I've heard the term "no brakes" used to describe the way I see Libertarian government, and while it was not meant as a compliment, I fully agree. There are no brakes; judgment is required at every step of the way, and when judgment is required, people will disagree.

The Reception of Mr. Moore

Mr. Moore, when he refected, (I believe everyone's first duty is to liberty, and so joining our party is not defecting, it is returning to one's roots), was our only state legislator. I believe our party, so used to lacking, reacted a bit in the vein of "me? You want to dance with me?" Mr. Moore was plastered on newspapers and media announcements as "hey, look, we have one now!" This was not fair to us, and not fair to him.

Nor was this unhealthy, weird relationship unique. Over the years, as we've grown, as we've shown we're not going away, and as our competitors have given up the facade of caring about our values, a steady parade of high-profile politicians have marched into, and out of, this party. You don't need me to recite the names. Too often, this party is looking for a magic bullet, a shortcut to respectability, a champion, only to completely and utterly reject the person we've placed into that role when they, inevitably, disappoint us. (I can think of two exceptions, in the sense of people who were never really welcomed in the first place, simply immediately treated with "well, you'll never be our champion.")

This is not a rant against refections. We should welcome those who see the value of affiliating with us with open arms, but not look to them as ways around the work of building our party. We should ask them to join with us in building the party, understanding that both partners will, at times, fall short of what was expected. I am against "get free quick schemes." There is no magic bullet, and time spent pursuing one is time spent not building this party in realistic ways. Refectors are not magic bullets. It is true that history shows that high-profile joiners is a major way for parties to grow, but they need to be incorporated into the fabric of a strong party.

It is clear why it is not fair to us to treat refectors in this way, but Mr. Hayes points out ways in which it is also unfair to the refector. When it emerges, for whatever reason, that the person will not be our champion, that we would need to partner with them, support tends to falter. Moreover, a welcome ought to include some instruction as well as promotion. Does a new member, elected to office under other title, know how best to run for office as a Libertarian? Do they know how to operate in office as a Libertarian? Doing these things is harder than doing so as a Republican or Democrat. There is no natural cushion of support within the legislature, no instant reward for toeing the party line, less of a natural basis for cooperation, and no existent structure to nurture and instruct newcomers, slowly moving them into committee positions and so on. The party apparatus may need to take on these unfamiliar roles to replace what is usually served by a caucus, until the party's presence grows. We need to build nationwide networks of support - a new Libertarian legislator in state X can get the advice from a political strategist in state Y, a scholar of legislative action in state Z, and a Libertarian officeholder in state A that they'd ordinarily receive from their party's legislative leadership within their body. Instead, I think there's a tendency to think refectors come in as a finished product, and then to be shocked when that is not the case.

The $10,000 Donation

I think I, and others, have said a lot on this topic already, so I'll try not to add too much. I regret this vote. I also think mistakes will happen. We all noted that we hadn't been ordinarily doing this sort of thing. My own thought was that, while a committee would be preferable for many reasons, it made sense to try out a few on our own, as we did. That experience can solidify the criteria to be used, the strategic value, and so on.

I absolutely believe that the board needs to be fiscally responsible and accountable. I do not believe in wasting money. That said, I do not believe in 0-risk budgeting either. If we adopt a rule that we should never make mistakes, we will have no growth. We should not, of course, be gambling with the member's money, and we should take responsibility when things do not work out, but we cannot allow ourselves to pursue only the safest, most secure options.

I used to work for a private school whose Headmaster told the faculty we needed serious change. I told him that, if he really believed massive change was needed, he had to approach it unafraid - he had to be willing to embrace the sort of change that that would either make the school a massive success or shut it down within 2 years. I don't think that strategy makes sense for the LP, but neither does a strategy of 0 risk. We cannot be overly harsh when things do not work out, but we must learn from them. We don't want to create incentives to just keep doing what we've been doing instead of trying new things.

It is true that we likely should have asked more about this donation - but we chose to give it, let's keep that clear. I personally don't think a contract is the way to go, and, as others have pointed out, it comes close to using money to influence government action. I think our best bet is to have a lot of Libertarian in office who have voting records - i.e. who have held prior offices with less far-reaching impacts and have a demonstrated record, over time, of moving public policy in a Libertarian direction. But this, I expect, will be a topic for discussion in December.

Joshua A. Katz

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If there was discussion prior to the motion being made, then I was not privy to that nor can I speak to it.

I do know that a bunch of votes were cast before we ever heard from Assemblyman Moore. That is not in dispute. I'm actually pretty amazed that Assemblyman Moore sent information to a jury that seems ready to convict regardless of his input.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-31 09:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

...

And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken. You presume a great deal.

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote: Daniel,

A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time.

Screenshots attached.

Ken

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote:

Ken, Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection.

Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard.

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote: Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party.

This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong.

A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer.

I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term.

Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty.

So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide.

That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at.

Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying.

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us.

If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.

If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation.

That's pretty much where I'm at on it.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote:

We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.

Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote: Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay.

If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

--- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

Motion:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

A couple of comments: First: Economic, social, political and ballot-box ostracism are all perfectly compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Our motion to censure, while perhaps not a good long-term plan, is an unpleasant but necessary measure to apprise John Moore of the inappropriateness of his “will of the people” votes in violation of Libertarian principles. In the long run, ostracism is a far more powerful tool to modify behavior that the NAP-violations of physical force employed by our compulsory authoritarian majority rule to get the public to serve the needs of the political elite at the point of a gun. Second: The Libertarian foundation of personal responsibility affirms that we are all responsible for our actions. Legislators are personally responsible for their votes. Public officials are personally responsible for both their public and private actions. Private individuals that constitute the “Public” are also responsible for their personal actions. Just because our ostracism actions do not violate the NAP, that does not relieve us of the responsibility for the morality of our ostracism actions. For example, if force is not used, private racial discrimination does not violate the NAP. However, we are personally responsible for the immorality of any such personal racial discrimination actions. The bottom line is that John Moore is responsible for his votes and we as LNC members are responsible for our votes on the motion to censure John Moore. I accept my responsibility for my YES vote on the motion to censure. It is my hope that John Moore will also accept his responsibility for the egregious nature of his votes that prompted our motion to censure and will move on to represent Libertarianism in Nevada in a more thoughtful manner consistent with Libertarian principles. The motion to censure aside, my well wishes go out to John for his future success as a Libertarian. Thoughts? The War on Compulsory Authoritarian Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now ~David Pratt Demarest Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus Secretary@LPNE.org <mailto:Secretary@LPNE.org> David.Demarest@LP.org <mailto:David.Demarest@LP.org> DPDemarest@centurylink.net <mailto:DPDemarest@centurylink.net> David.Demarest@firstdata.com <mailto:David.Demarest@firstdata.com> DPrattDemarest@gmail.com <mailto:DPrattDemarest@gmail.com> http://www.LPNE.org <http://www.lpne.org/> http://www.LP.org <http://www.lp.org/> Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 Office: 402-222-7207 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 1:19 PM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore I don't find much in what Starchild writes here with which to disagree, but on this: Joshua says that to be a public official is to have the right and obligation to make the final decision. Well, yes and no. Yes when it comes to how one votes in the legislature, of course. But the public may have something further to say about that vote, either at the ballot box or elsewhere, and we are part of the public. Contrary to what part of John's letter seems to suggest, censure, public pressure, and so on are entirely compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle. I do have a comment. Of course I don't mean that no one can say anything about the way a public official votes. By "final decision" I meant casting the vote in the legislature, or taking actions as an executive. Naturally, the public can criticize, can recall, can lobby, etc. All I meant was that the public, while doing those things, is not ultimately responsible. If constituents pressure their representative to vote for the draft, it is the representative who has taken action to send people to kill and be killed against their will. The actions of the constituents can be criticized, but doesn't bear the same weight of responsibility. Joshua A. Katz On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net <mailto:sfdreamer@earthlink.net> > wrote: This email is likewise not my vote. I was going to include my vote here, but discovering I have more to say here than I expected, in response to Joshua as well as on the motion and the larger context surrounding it, I'll spare the secretary trying to keep track of a vote buried in a long post, and email my vote separately. I'm with Joshua in rejecting the "libertarian binary" that someone either is a libertarian, or they aren't. Life is more complicated and nuanced than that. John Moore making a couple of bad decisions doesn't make him "the enemy". People can and do change, and censure is not the death penalty or banishment for life. Nevertheless, Joshua is also right that Moore's vote to subsidize the billionaire stadium owner to the tune of $750 million in taxpayer money has "grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot," and I agree he should be criticized for it. Beyond that, I feel it is both right and appropriate that he pay a political price that outweighs any political benefit he reaped by casting the anti-freedom votes in question. Yes, the Nevada LP has censured him. And if they hadn't, I'm sure we'd be hearing in his defense that since his state affailiate didn't see fit to censure him, why should we? Obviously one answer to that question, which still applies in present circumstances, is that we gave him $10,000 and he didn't live up to our expectations for candidates toward whom we are generous with LP members' money. Joshua said we need a system that "incentivizes Libertarian officeholders in such a way that there natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like," and David made much the same point previously in referring to this resolution as a less than ideal instrument of "blunt force" (not force in the libertarian sense obviously, but I understand what he meant). I too would love to see us come up with a better approach to incentivizing Libertarian candidates, officeholders, and other party leaders to support freedom. But unless/until we do, I think we must apply the imperfect incentives we have available to us. It is vital to our sustainability as a libertarian party that those who represent us understand Libertarians will not take serious ideological betrayals sitting down, so that this enters into their political calculations and makes such betrayals politically unattractive. If the political advantage that an officeholder can gain by voting against liberty outweighs any political penalty that we impose for such votes, and we lack the resources to out-bribe the statists in getting the officeholder to vote for liberty, the problem is obvious. In this case, bribing Moore to vote the right way is not even an option, because the votes have already been cast and he can't go back and change them now even if he wanted to. Notably though, his letter does not express shame or regret for his votes, but on the contrary defiantly asserts that he stands by them 100%. I read his explanation for why he voted the way he did, and did not find the various rationales expressed therein convincing. Frankly I see little moral distinction between casting a vote to allow other politicians to raise taxes, and voting to raise them directly. The idea of siding with a majority of one's constituents sounds good in the abstract, and might be appropriate in some cases, such as if the legislature were simply deciding what color to paint the stadium and decided to go with the color(s) favored by the community. But what if you're in office and a majority of your constituents support reinstating the military draft, or deporting 11 million people, or even sending undesirables to the gas chamber? I certainly hope no Libertarian would vote for any of those things, but once you place the opinions of constituents above doing the right thing, there's no theoretical limit on how far one could go in acting contrary to libertarian principles. Moore's admonition to people who find his stadium vote reprehensible to never go see a game there, never patronize any business that may be built in the area as the result of the stadium being built, etc., is a weak argument. Getting some restitution for the money that's been stolen from you by getting some use out of the facilities built with the stolen money is in no way comparable to actually stealing the money. Joshua says that to be a public official is to have the right and obligation to make the final decision. Well, yes and no. Yes when it comes to how one votes in the legislature, of course. But the public may have something further to say about that vote, either at the ballot box or elsewhere, and we are part of the public. Contrary to what part of John's letter seems to suggest, censure, public pressure, and so on are entirely compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle. Ultimately, I think it's possible to get to the heart of the issue and reach the right conclusion with a couple simple questions: • Would you hesitate to forcefully condemn a vote like this if it had been made by a Republican or Democrat? • Do you think we should hold Libertarian candidates and officeholders to a higher standard than duopoly candidates, or a lower standard? I firmly believe we must hold our candidates (including ourselves when we run for office) to a higher standard. If we do not, then there is no reason for the public to see us as any different from the cartel parties. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Oct 31, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Joshua Katz wrote: I have, also, been thinking about this. This email is not my vote; it is a collection of thoughts on topics raised by this question. The Big Picture The purpose of the LP is not, in my opinion, "to pursue freedom" or some variation. That's too broad, and it's the purpose of the entire freedom movement. Neither, though, is the purpose of the LP to elect candidates to office; that omits the fact that we do so for a reason. I believe our purpose is to change public policy in a libertarian direction, and to do so specifically by electing candidates to office (or otherwise getting them there). This is why it is particularly upsetting to us when Libertarians get into office (or, in this case, come into existence while in office) but then do not move public policy in that direction. It is an insult to our very reason for being. Mr. Moore should, in my view, be criticized for that. I reject the "libertarian binary" and do not ask if he is a real libertarian - I ask what he's done. In this instance, he's grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot. That doesn't mean that he's now "the enemy" - life is not actually like a movie where everyone must be a hero or a villain. The primary motivator of my libertarianism is the perception that our system is far too punitive and never gives (some) people another chance after a mistake. Let's not be like that. Mr. Moore is not Anakin crossing over to Sheldon Adelson's Empire. He's a legislator who made a vote which we find outrageous, wrong, and harmful. If he had vote the other way, others would have found his vote outrageous, wrong, and harmful. To be a public official is to bear responsibility for your actions in a way that your supporters do not, which grants the right and obligation to make the final decision. He made his decision. We disagree. We must remember, at the same time, that people are not automatons, and libertarian policy answers in a libertarian world are not always clear. In this case, I agree - it was clear. It will not always be, and we should be prepared for that. A successful party will be unable to keep track of the multitudes of votes cast by its legislators. A party simply cannot afford to be cast into such a state of panic as this over a single vote by one member of a state legislature. While the LP itself does not do so, I note that many libertarian organizations regularly criticize legislators for party line voting, when it suits them. When the people of a legislator's district desire something more libertarian than their party, the legislator will regularly be called out and criticized for not representing his district. We tend to attach meaning to the fact that a large majority desires an end to our endless wars, opposed the bailouts, and so on. My bottom line: we need a system that generates, promotes, and incentivizes Libertarian officeholders, in such a way that there are natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like. We need enough faith in Libertarian officeholders that we can disagree with votes in good faith, which means we need libertarian-enough officeholders for that to work. Mr. Moore's Privacy Within the LP, the same logic applies to us. We bear responsibility for our actions. We chose to give him $10,000, he didn't force us to do so. Our members, as I've said elsewhere, have the right to such information as they need to judge our performance, so that they can toss us out as desired. Mr. Moore is not a leader of this party, is not an LNC member, and his letter regarding his reasons for voting does not fall into that category. He did not lose his right to communicate privately with those who choose to communicate with him when he donated money to him. People have every right to send communications which they label confidential; recipients have the right to accept those terms or to not read the communication. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Moore's request for confidentiality; if LNC members do not wish to have their votes influenced by a confidential message, they have every right not to read it. Party Governance Ever since this vote, the LNC communications list has increased in volume. I am not critical of that, but I do wonder why the vote cast by a Nevada legislator is so much more capable of bringing us to life than governing our own party. Our membership has grown as a result of disgust with our opponents and enthusiasm over our Presidential ticket: what is our plan to retain those members? What is our plan to bring them into the fray, so to speak, and turn our new roof into strong walls? Donations are up, and we've done the accounting for the money we needed to do as a housekeeping measure. If we cover the money we should have spent last year on the mortgage but do not spend down more, we'll have a lot of extra cash on hand compared to where we expected to be. As a reminder, one of the arguments for buying an office rather than renting was improved cash flow in election years. So what new programs will we be performing with the money? What new services will we be offering, to add value beyond moving money from state to state? We can decide that there's nothing we need to do to strengthen this party that would profit from an improved cash flow position, and just take all the unexpected cash on hand to pay down the mortgage; maybe that's the right decision. Not all categories of donations are up, though. Recurring gifts are lower than budgeted. Do we have a plan for increasing recurring gifts, or for dealing with the likely results of our current position being more of a one-time windfall than a sustainable increase? This all brings me to a recurring point: boards have important functions. They provide leadership at the highest strategic levels. They provide accountability and oversight. When the board is more interested in the more exciting ideological goings-on than in minding the shop, the shop doesn't get minded. Let's spend some of this energy on being more accountable with our funds, improving our governance structures, and developing a long-term strategic vision that will give us more state legislators than we can possibly keep track of - along with institutional incentives and other structures that will increase the chances of those legislators, without our individual intervention, voting to move public policy in a libertarian direction. How Should Representatives Vote? It is my view that representatives, both on the LNC and in public office, are chosen for their broadly-defined positions, their judgment, and their vision. They are not meant to simply be echos for the majority of their constituents, however defined. A good representative will sometimes go against a large majority of their constituents - the constituents retain, of course, the ultimate power of recall. It's been mentioned on this list that Mr. Moore's constituents, at a ratio of about 60-40, favored the stadium. To me, this is not particularly helpful; legislators are supposed to vote based on their own judgment in the ultimate best interest of their constituents. In Mr. Moore's case, though, a problem arises. His voters didn't get what they expected. If the voters of a district elect a Libertarian, they know, or ought to know, what they're getting into. Even if they favor a particular government program, they should not be surprised to see their representative vote otherwise. When the voters elect a Republican, though, is it fair to say they should have expected a representative who opposes crony capitalism? This points to the need for more home-grown elected officials. That is not to say we should reject or turn away those who, after being elected because they wish to serve, realize that the greatest way to serve the public and improve the world is to be a Libertarian. It is to say we need more of our own, and we need to take actions to get there. We also cannot expect 100% party-line votes. Politics is a game of possibilities. Even home-grown elected Libertarians will face many incentives on each vote, and philosophy is only one. Responsible governance is another - sometimes, the ideal will have to be sacrificed for the real. Most of the time, there simply won't be a libertarian option - most questions that cross a public official's desk are perpendicular to the freedom question. The big, exciting, dramatic votes, though, do tend to have a larger freedom component than the more routine. Modern-day liberals seem to picture that government officials have a dial behind their desks. Turn it one way and inequality increases, turn it the other and inequality decreases, and nothing else changes. They cannot imagine, then, why some officials simply refuse to turn it in the equality direction. Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, picture a dial that determines the level of virtue in society. This virtue takes a few forms: the martial virtues, honor and respect, family values, but they tend to think they can all be increased uniformly (as though "family values" would not be impacted by sending our young people to war, for instance). Similarly, they find it astounding that anyone would turn the dial away from virtue. Libertarians need not pretend there's a dial controlling the level of freedom - we know, better than the average liberal or conservative, about the inescapable fact of trade-offs. We know that all else does not hold equal. I've defined my libertarianism as a presumption in favor of freedom, against regulation, in favor of the individual. It is our job to encourage the selection, growth, and election of Libertarians who can navigate those trade-offs effectively, steering the ship of state in a freedom direction without flipping the boat, keeping an eye out for icebergs. We need to do so because asking them to govern will mean trusting their judgment. I've heard the term "no brakes" used to describe the way I see Libertarian government, and while it was not meant as a compliment, I fully agree. There are no brakes; judgment is required at every step of the way, and when judgment is required, people will disagree. The Reception of Mr. Moore Mr. Moore, when he refected, (I believe everyone's first duty is to liberty, and so joining our party is not defecting, it is returning to one's roots), was our only state legislator. I believe our party, so used to lacking, reacted a bit in the vein of "me? You want to dance with me?" Mr. Moore was plastered on newspapers and media announcements as "hey, look, we have one now!" This was not fair to us, and not fair to him. Nor was this unhealthy, weird relationship unique. Over the years, as we've grown, as we've shown we're not going away, and as our competitors have given up the facade of caring about our values, a steady parade of high-profile politicians have marched into, and out of, this party. You don't need me to recite the names. Too often, this party is looking for a magic bullet, a shortcut to respectability, a champion, only to completely and utterly reject the person we've placed into that role when they, inevitably, disappoint us. (I can think of two exceptions, in the sense of people who were never really welcomed in the first place, simply immediately treated with "well, you'll never be our champion.") This is not a rant against refections. We should welcome those who see the value of affiliating with us with open arms, but not look to them as ways around the work of building our party. We should ask them to join with us in building the party, understanding that both partners will, at times, fall short of what was expected. I am against "get free quick schemes." There is no magic bullet, and time spent pursuing one is time spent not building this party in realistic ways. Refectors are not magic bullets. It is true that history shows that high-profile joiners is a major way for parties to grow, but they need to be incorporated into the fabric of a strong party. It is clear why it is not fair to us to treat refectors in this way, but Mr. Hayes points out ways in which it is also unfair to the refector. When it emerges, for whatever reason, that the person will not be our champion, that we would need to partner with them, support tends to falter. Moreover, a welcome ought to include some instruction as well as promotion. Does a new member, elected to office under other title, know how best to run for office as a Libertarian? Do they know how to operate in office as a Libertarian? Doing these things is harder than doing so as a Republican or Democrat. There is no natural cushion of support within the legislature, no instant reward for toeing the party line, less of a natural basis for cooperation, and no existent structure to nurture and instruct newcomers, slowly moving them into committee positions and so on. The party apparatus may need to take on these unfamiliar roles to replace what is usually served by a caucus, until the party's presence grows. We need to build nationwide networks of support - a new Libertarian legislator in state X can get the advice from a political strategist in state Y, a scholar of legislative action in state Z, and a Libertarian officeholder in state A that they'd ordinarily receive from their party's legislative leadership within their body. Instead, I think there's a tendency to think refectors come in as a finished product, and then to be shocked when that is not the case. The $10,000 Donation I think I, and others, have said a lot on this topic already, so I'll try not to add too much. I regret this vote. I also think mistakes will happen. We all noted that we hadn't been ordinarily doing this sort of thing. My own thought was that, while a committee would be preferable for many reasons, it made sense to try out a few on our own, as we did. That experience can solidify the criteria to be used, the strategic value, and so on. I absolutely believe that the board needs to be fiscally responsible and accountable. I do not believe in wasting money. That said, I do not believe in 0-risk budgeting either. If we adopt a rule that we should never make mistakes, we will have no growth. We should not, of course, be gambling with the member's money, and we should take responsibility when things do not work out, but we cannot allow ourselves to pursue only the safest, most secure options. I used to work for a private school whose Headmaster told the faculty we needed serious change. I told him that, if he really believed massive change was needed, he had to approach it unafraid - he had to be willing to embrace the sort of change that that would either make the school a massive success or shut it down within 2 years. I don't think that strategy makes sense for the LP, but neither does a strategy of 0 risk. We cannot be overly harsh when things do not work out, but we must learn from them. We don't want to create incentives to just keep doing what we've been doing instead of trying new things. It is true that we likely should have asked more about this donation - but we chose to give it, let's keep that clear. I personally don't think a contract is the way to go, and, as others have pointed out, it comes close to using money to influence government action. I think our best bet is to have a lot of Libertarian in office who have voting records - i.e. who have held prior offices with less far-reaching impacts and have a demonstrated record, over time, of moving public policy in a Libertarian direction. But this, I expect, will be a topic for discussion in December. Joshua A. Katz On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If there was discussion prior to the motion being made, then I was not privy to that nor can I speak to it. I do know that a bunch of votes were cast before we ever heard from Assemblyman Moore. That is not in dispute. I'm actually pretty amazed that Assemblyman Moore sent information to a jury that seems ready to convict regardless of his input. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-31 09:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken. You presume a great deal. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Daniel, A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time. Screenshots attached. Ken --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote: Ken, Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30 --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection. Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party. This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong. A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer. I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term. Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty. So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide. That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at. Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us. If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip. If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation. That's pretty much where I'm at on it. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote: We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization. If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize. Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand. Ken On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken, I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings." You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements. And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against. The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew? As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Fellow colleagues, I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message. It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps. I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly. With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today. Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area. I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear. I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.) Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005. Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members. Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here? * Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? * Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing? In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being. We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision. * In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. * In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills. We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive? Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm? Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party? So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary. What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish? Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well. So, in sum, I find as follows: * I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization. Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath Motion: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

The policy manual is under minutes On Monday, October 31, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

The Policy Manual seems to be missing from the new website, so I'm not sure if a plurality or a majority is required on an email ballot, but right now the vote appears to be:

8 Yes (Vohra, Redpath, Goldstein, Starchild, Hayes, Harlos, Demerest/O'Toole, McKnight) 4 No (Katz, Marsh, /Moellman, Hewitt) 1 Abstain (Bilyeu) 3 Haven't voted (Sarwark, Mattson, Hagan)

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-31 21:22, David Demarest wrote:

A couple of comments:

First: Economic, social, political and ballot-box ostracism are all perfectly compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Our motion to censure, while perhaps not a good long-term plan, is an unpleasant but necessary measure to apprise John Moore of the inappropriateness of his "will of the people" votes in violation of Libertarian principles. In the long run, ostracism is a far more powerful tool to modify behavior that the NAP-violations of physical force employed by our compulsory authoritarian majority rule to get the public to serve the needs of the political elite at the point of a gun.

Second: The Libertarian foundation of personal responsibility affirms that we are all responsible for our actions. Legislators are personally responsible for their votes. Public officials are personally responsible for both their public and private actions. Private individuals that constitute the "Public" are also responsible for their personal actions. Just because our ostracism actions do not violate the NAP, that does not relieve us of the responsibility for the morality of our ostracism actions. For example, if force is not used, private racial discrimination does not violate the NAP. However, we are personally responsible for the immorality of any such personal racial discrimination actions.

The bottom line is that John Moore is responsible for his votes and we as LNC members are responsible for our votes on the motion to censure John Moore. I accept my responsibility for my YES vote on the motion to censure. It is my hope that John Moore will also accept his responsibility for the egregious nature of his votes that prompted our motion to censure and will move on to represent Libertarianism in Nevada in a more thoughtful manner consistent with Libertarian principles. The motion to censure aside, my well wishes go out to John for his future success as a Libertarian.

Thoughts?

*The War on Compulsory Authoritarian Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now*

~David Pratt Demarest

Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus

Secretary@LPNE.org

David.Demarest@LP.org

DPDemarest@centurylink.net

David.Demarest@firstdata.com

DPrattDemarest@gmail.com

http://www.LPNE.org <http://www.lpne.org/>

http://www.LP.org <http://www.lp.org/>

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

*From:* Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] *On Behalf Of *Joshua Katz *Sent:* Monday, October 31, 2016 1:19 PM *To:* lnc-business@hq.lp.org *Subject:* Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I don't find much in what Starchild writes here with which to disagree, but on this:

*Joshua says that to be a public official is to have the right and obligation to make the final decision. Well, yes and no. Yes when it comes to how one votes in the legislature, of course. But the public may have something further to say about that vote, either at the ballot box or elsewhere, and we are part of the public. Contrary to what part of John's letter seems to suggest, censure, public pressure, and so on are entirely compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle.*

I do have a comment. Of course I don't mean that no one can say anything about the way a public official votes. By "final decision" I meant casting the vote in the legislature, or taking actions as an executive. Naturally, the public can criticize, can recall, can lobby, etc. All I meant was that the public, while doing those things, is not ultimately responsible. If constituents pressure their representative to vote for the draft, it is the representative who has taken action to send people to kill and be killed against their will. The actions of the constituents can be criticized, but doesn't bear the same weight of responsibility.

Joshua A. Katz

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net> wrote:

This email is likewise not my vote. I was going to include my vote here, but discovering I have more to say here than I expected, in response to Joshua as well as on the motion and the larger context surrounding it, I'll spare the secretary trying to keep track of a vote buried in a long post, and email my vote separately.

I'm with Joshua in rejecting the "libertarian binary" that someone either is a libertarian, or they aren't. Life is more complicated and nuanced than that. John Moore making a couple of bad decisions doesn't make him "the enemy". People can and do change, and censure is not the death penalty or banishment for life. Nevertheless, Joshua is also right that Moore's vote to subsidize the billionaire stadium owner to the tune of $750 million in taxpayer money has "grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot," and I agree he should be criticized for it. Beyond that, I feel it is both right and appropriate that he pay a political price that outweighs any political benefit he reaped by casting the anti-freedom votes in question.

Yes, the Nevada LP has censured him. And if they hadn't, I'm sure we'd be hearing in his defense that since his state affailiate didn't see fit to censure him, why should we? Obviously one answer to that question, which still applies in present circumstances, is that we gave him $10,000 and he didn't live up to our expectations for candidates toward whom we are generous with LP members' money.

Joshua said we need a system that "incentivizes Libertarian officeholders in such a way that there natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like," and David made much the same point previously in referring to this resolution as a less than ideal instrument of "blunt force" (not *force* in the libertarian sense obviously, but I understand what he meant). I too would love to see us come up with a better approach to incentivizing Libertarian candidates, officeholders, and other party leaders to support freedom. But unless/until we do, I think we must apply the imperfect incentives we have available to us. It is vital to our sustainability as a *libertarian* party that those who represent us understand Libertarians will not take serious ideological betrayals sitting down, so that this enters into their political calculations and makes such betrayals politically unattractive.

If the political advantage that an officeholder can gain by voting against liberty outweighs any political penalty that we impose for such votes, and we lack the resources to out-bribe the statists in getting the officeholder to vote *for* liberty, the problem is obvious. In this case, bribing Moore to vote the right way is not even an option, because the votes have already been cast and he can't go back and change them now even if he wanted to.

Notably though, his letter does *not* express shame or regret for his votes, but on the contrary defiantly asserts that he stands by them 100%. I read his explanation for why he voted the way he did, and did not find the various rationales expressed therein convincing. Frankly I see little moral distinction between casting a vote to allow other politicians to raise taxes, and voting to raise them directly. The idea of siding with a majority of one's constituents sounds good in the abstract, and might be appropriate in some cases, such as if the legislature were simply deciding what color to paint the stadium and decided to go with the color(s) favored by the community. But what if you're in office and a majority of your constituents support reinstating the military draft, or deporting 11 million people, or even sending undesirables to the gas chamber? I certainly hope no Libertarian would vote for any of those things, but once you place the opinions of constituents above doing the right thing, there's no theoretical limit on how far one could go in acting contrary to libertarian principles. Moore's admonition to people who find his stadium vote reprehensible to never go see a game there, never patronize any business that may be built in the area as the result of the stadium being built, etc., is a weak argument. Getting some restitution for the money that's been stolen from you by getting some use out of the facilities built with the stolen money is in no way comparable to actually stealing the money.

Joshua says that to be a public official is to have the right and obligation to make the final decision. Well, yes and no. Yes when it comes to how one votes in the legislature, of course. But the public may have something further to say about that vote, either at the ballot box or elsewhere, and we are part of the public. Contrary to what part of John's letter seems to suggest, censure, public pressure, and so on are entirely compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle.

Ultimately, I think it's possible to get to the heart of the issue and reach the right conclusion with a couple simple questions:

• Would you hesitate to forcefully condemn a vote like this if it had been made by a Republican or Democrat?

• Do you think we should hold Libertarian candidates and officeholders to a higher standard than duopoly candidates, or a lower standard?

I firmly believe we must hold our candidates (including ourselves when we run for office) to a higher standard. If we do not, then there is no reason for the public to see us as any different from the cartel parties.

Love & Liberty,

((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

(415) 625-FREE

@StarchildSF

On Oct 31, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Joshua Katz wrote:

I have, also, been thinking about this. This email is not my vote; it is a collection of thoughts on topics raised by this question.

*The Big Picture*

The purpose of the LP is not, in my opinion, "to pursue freedom" or some variation. That's too broad, and it's the purpose of the entire freedom movement. Neither, though, is the purpose of the LP to elect candidates to office; that omits the fact that we do so for a reason. I believe our purpose is to change public policy in a libertarian direction, and to do so specifically by electing candidates to office (or otherwise getting them there).

This is why it is particularly upsetting to us when Libertarians get into office (or, in this case, come into existence while in office) but then do not move public policy in that direction. It is an insult to our very reason for being.

Mr. Moore should, in my view, be criticized for that. I reject the "libertarian binary" and do not ask if he is a real libertarian - I ask what he's done. In this instance, he's grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot. That doesn't mean that he's now "the enemy" - life is not actually like a movie where everyone must be a hero or a villain. The primary motivator of my libertarianism is the perception that our system is far too punitive and never gives (some) people another chance after a mistake. Let's not be like that. Mr. Moore is not Anakin crossing over to Sheldon Adelson's Empire. He's a legislator who made a vote which we find outrageous, wrong, and harmful. If he had vote the other way, others would have found his vote outrageous, wrong, and harmful. To be a public official is to bear responsibility for your actions in a way that your supporters do not, which grants the right and obligation to make the final decision. He made his decision. We disagree.

We must remember, at the same time, that people are not automatons, and libertarian policy answers in a libertarian world are not always clear. In this case, I agree - it was clear. It will not always be, and we should be prepared for that. A successful party will be unable to keep track of the multitudes of votes cast by its legislators. A party simply cannot afford to be cast into such a state of panic as this over a single vote by one member of a state legislature.

While the LP itself does not do so, I note that many libertarian organizations regularly criticize legislators for party line voting, when it suits them. When the people of a legislator's district desire something more libertarian than their party, the legislator will regularly be called out and criticized for not representing his district. We tend to attach meaning to the fact that a large majority desires an end to our endless wars, opposed the bailouts, and so on.

My bottom line: we need a system that generates, promotes, and incentivizes Libertarian officeholders, in such a way that there are natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like. We need enough faith in Libertarian officeholders that we can disagree with votes in good faith, which means we need libertarian-enough officeholders for that to work.

*Mr. Moore's Privacy*

Within the LP, the same logic applies to us. We bear responsibility for our actions. We chose to give him $10,000, he didn't force us to do so. Our members, as I've said elsewhere, have the right to such information as they need to judge our performance, so that they can toss us out as desired. Mr. Moore is not a leader of this party, is not an LNC member, and his letter regarding his reasons for voting does not fall into that category. He did not lose his right to communicate privately with those who choose to communicate with him when he donated money to him. People have every right to send communications which they label confidential; recipients have the right to accept those terms or to not read the communication. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Moore's request for confidentiality; if LNC members do not wish to have their votes influenced by a confidential message, they have every right not to read it.

*Party Governance*

Ever since this vote, the LNC communications list has increased in volume. I am not critical of that, but I do wonder why the vote cast by a Nevada legislator is so much more capable of bringing us to life than governing our own party. Our membership has grown as a result of disgust with our opponents and enthusiasm over our Presidential ticket: what is our plan to retain those members? What is our plan to bring them into the fray, so to speak, and turn our new roof into strong walls?

Donations are up, and we've done the accounting for the money we needed to do as a housekeeping measure. If we cover the money we should have spent last year on the mortgage but do not spend down more, we'll have a lot of extra cash on hand compared to where we expected to be. As a reminder, one of the arguments for buying an office rather than renting was improved cash flow in election years. So what new programs will we be performing with the money? What new services will we be offering, to add value beyond moving money from state to state? We can decide that there's nothing we need to do to strengthen this party that would profit from an improved cash flow position, and just take all the unexpected cash on hand to pay down the mortgage; maybe that's the right decision.

Not all categories of donations are up, though. Recurring gifts are lower than budgeted. Do we have a plan for increasing recurring gifts, or for dealing with the likely results of our current position being more of a one-time windfall than a sustainable increase?

This all brings me to a recurring point: boards have important functions. They provide leadership at the highest strategic levels. They provide accountability and oversight. When the board is more interested in the more exciting ideological goings-on than in minding the shop, the shop doesn't get minded.

Let's spend some of this energy on being more accountable with our funds, improving our governance structures, and developing a long-term strategic vision that will give us more state legislators than we can possibly keep track of - along with institutional incentives and other structures that will increase the chances of those legislators, without our individual intervention, voting to move public policy in a libertarian direction.

*How Should Representatives Vote?*

It is my view that representatives, both on the LNC and in public office, are chosen for their broadly-defined positions, their judgment, and their vision. They are not meant to simply be echos for the majority of their constituents, however defined. A good representative will sometimes go against a large majority of their constituents - the constituents retain, of course, the ultimate power of recall.

It's been mentioned on this list that Mr. Moore's constituents, at a ratio of about 60-40, favored the stadium. To me, this is not particularly helpful; legislators are supposed to vote based on their own judgment in the ultimate best interest of their constituents. In Mr. Moore's case, though, a problem arises. His voters didn't get what they expected. If the voters of a district elect a Libertarian, they know, or ought to know, what they're getting into. Even if they favor a particular government program, they should not be surprised to see their representative vote otherwise. When the voters elect a Republican, though, is it fair to say they should have expected a representative who opposes crony capitalism?

This points to the need for more home-grown elected officials. That is not to say we should reject or turn away those who, after being elected because they wish to serve, realize that the greatest way to serve the public and improve the world is to be a Libertarian. It is to say we need more of our own, and we need to take actions to get there.

We also cannot expect 100% party-line votes. Politics is a game of possibilities. Even home-grown elected Libertarians will face many incentives on each vote, and philosophy is only one. Responsible governance is another - sometimes, the ideal will have to be sacrificed for the real. Most of the time, there simply won't be a libertarian option - most questions that cross a public official's desk are perpendicular to the freedom question. The big, exciting, dramatic votes, though, do tend to have a larger freedom component than the more routine.

Modern-day liberals seem to picture that government officials have a dial behind their desks. Turn it one way and inequality increases, turn it the other and inequality decreases, and nothing else changes. They cannot imagine, then, why some officials simply refuse to turn it in the equality direction.

Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, picture a dial that determines the level of virtue in society. This virtue takes a few forms: the martial virtues, honor and respect, family values, but they tend to think they can all be increased uniformly (as though "family values" would not be impacted by sending our young people to war, for instance). Similarly, they find it astounding that anyone would turn the dial away from virtue.

Libertarians need not pretend there's a dial controlling the level of freedom - we know, better than the average liberal or conservative, about the inescapable fact of trade-offs. We know that all else does not hold equal. I've defined my libertarianism as a presumption in favor of freedom, against regulation, in favor of the individual.

It is our job to encourage the selection, growth, and election of Libertarians who can navigate those trade-offs effectively, steering the ship of state in a freedom direction without flipping the boat, keeping an eye out for icebergs. We need to do so because asking them to govern will mean trusting their judgment. I've heard the term "no brakes" used to describe the way I see Libertarian government, and while it was not meant as a compliment, I fully agree. There are no brakes; judgment is required at every step of the way, and when judgment is required, people will disagree.

*The Reception of Mr. Moore*

Mr. Moore, when he refected, (I believe everyone's first duty is to liberty, and so joining our party is not defecting, it is returning to one's roots), was our only state legislator. I believe our party, so used to lacking, reacted a bit in the vein of "me? You want to dance with me?" Mr. Moore was plastered on newspapers and media announcements as "hey, look, we have one now!" This was not fair to us, and not fair to him.

Nor was this unhealthy, weird relationship unique. Over the years, as we've grown, as we've shown we're not going away, and as our competitors have given up the facade of caring about our values, a steady parade of high-profile politicians have marched into, and out of, this party. You don't need me to recite the names. Too often, this party is looking for a magic bullet, a shortcut to respectability, a champion, only to completely and utterly reject the person we've placed into that role when they, inevitably, disappoint us. (I can think of two exceptions, in the sense of people who were never really welcomed in the first place, simply immediately treated with "well, you'll never be our champion.")

This is not a rant against refections. We should welcome those who see the value of affiliating with us with open arms, but not look to them as ways around the work of building our party. We should ask them to join with us in building the party, understanding that both partners will, at times, fall short of what was expected. I am against "get free quick schemes." There is no magic bullet, and time spent pursuing one is time spent not building this party in realistic ways. Refectors are not magic bullets. It is true that history shows that high-profile joiners is a major way for parties to grow, but they need to be incorporated into the fabric of a strong party.

It is clear why it is not fair to us to treat refectors in this way, but Mr. Hayes points out ways in which it is also unfair to the refector. When it emerges, for whatever reason, that the person will not be our champion, that we would need to partner with them, support tends to falter. Moreover, a welcome ought to include some instruction as well as promotion. Does a new member, elected to office under other title, know how best to run for office as a Libertarian? Do they know how to operate in office as a Libertarian? Doing these things is harder than doing so as a Republican or Democrat. There is no natural cushion of support within the legislature, no instant reward for toeing the party line, less of a natural basis for cooperation, and no existent structure to nurture and instruct newcomers, slowly moving them into committee positions and so on. The party apparatus may need to take on these unfamiliar roles to replace what is usually served by a caucus, until the party's presence grows. We need to build nationwide networks of support - a new Libertarian legislator in state X can get the advice from a political strategist in state Y, a scholar of legislative action in state Z, and a Libertarian officeholder in state A that they'd ordinarily receive from their party's legislative leadership within their body. Instead, I think there's a tendency to think refectors come in as a finished product, and then to be shocked when that is not the case.

*The $10,000 Donation*

I think I, and others, have said a lot on this topic already, so I'll try not to add too much. I regret this vote. I also think mistakes will happen. We all noted that we hadn't been ordinarily doing this sort of thing. My own thought was that, while a committee would be preferable for many reasons, it made sense to try out a few on our own, as we did. That experience can solidify the criteria to be used, the strategic value, and so on.

I absolutely believe that the board needs to be fiscally responsible and accountable. I do not believe in wasting money. That said, I do not believe in 0-risk budgeting either. If we adopt a rule that we should never make mistakes, we will have no growth. We should not, of course, be gambling with the member's money, and we should take responsibility when things do not work out, but we cannot allow ourselves to pursue only the safest, most secure options.

I used to work for a private school whose Headmaster told the faculty we needed serious change. I told him that, if he really believed massive change was needed, he had to approach it unafraid - he had to be willing to embrace the sort of change that that would either make the school a massive success or shut it down within 2 years. I don't think that strategy makes sense for the LP, but neither does a strategy of 0 risk. We cannot be overly harsh when things do not work out, but we must learn from them. We don't want to create incentives to just keep doing what we've been doing instead of trying new things.

It is true that we likely should have asked more about this donation - but we chose to give it, let's keep that clear. I personally don't think a contract is the way to go, and, as others have pointed out, it comes close to using money to influence government action. I think our best bet is to have a lot of Libertarian in office who have voting records - i.e. who have held prior offices with less far-reaching impacts and have a demonstrated record, over time, of moving public policy in a Libertarian direction. But this, I expect, will be a topic for discussion in December.

Joshua A. Katz

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If there was discussion prior to the motion being made, then I was not privy to that nor can I speak to it.

I do know that a bunch of votes were cast before we ever heard from Assemblyman Moore. That is not in dispute. I'm actually pretty amazed that Assemblyman Moore sent information to a jury that seems ready to convict regardless of his input.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-31 09:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken. You presume a great deal.

--

*In Liberty,*

*Caryn Ann Harlos*

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Daniel,

A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time.

Screenshots attached.

Ken

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote:

Ken,

Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection.

Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard.

--

*In Liberty,*

*Caryn Ann Harlos*

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party.

This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong.

A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer.

I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term.

Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty.

So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide.

That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at.

Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying.

--

*In Liberty,*

*Caryn Ann Harlos*

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us.

If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.

If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation.

That's pretty much where I'm at on it.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote:

We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? *Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes.* With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard.

--

*In Liberty,*

*Caryn Ann Harlos*

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

- Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? - Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

- In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. - In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

- I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. - I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. - I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. - I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. - I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. - I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. - Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

*Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. *If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

*Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.*

*Co-Sponsors:* Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

*Motion:*

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--

*In Liberty,*

*Caryn Ann Harlos*

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--

*In Liberty,*

*Caryn Ann Harlos*

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

--

*In Liberty,*

*Caryn Ann Harlos*

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

--

*In Liberty,*

*Caryn Ann Harlos*

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/>

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/ <http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org>

-- *In Liberty,* *Caryn Ann Harlos* Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org>

Joshua, I respectfully disagree. If the purpose of the LP is not the pursuit of freedom but merely to move public policy in a Libertarian direction, that suggests that the LP is an institutional end in and of itself and has a life of its own separate from the pursuit of freedom. The LP may not be the only institutional representative of the pursuit of freedom but it certainly is more than just an amusing pastime for political dilettantes to fill their lives with the game of getting Libertarians elected. In my estimation, the LP plays second fiddle to the goal of freedom but is the tool of choice to succeed in the pursuit of freedom. Thoughts? The War on Compulsory Authoritarian Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now ~David Pratt Demarest Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee Cell: 402-981-6469 Home: 402-493-0873 Office: 402-222-7207 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:37 AM To: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore I have, also, been thinking about this. This email is not my vote; it is a collection of thoughts on topics raised by this question. The Big Picture The purpose of the LP is not, in my opinion, "to pursue freedom" or some variation. That's too broad, and it's the purpose of the entire freedom movement. Neither, though, is the purpose of the LP to elect candidates to office; that omits the fact that we do so for a reason. I believe our purpose is to change public policy in a libertarian direction, and to do so specifically by electing candidates to office (or otherwise getting them there). This is why it is particularly upsetting to us when Libertarians get into office (or, in this case, come into existence while in office) but then do not move public policy in that direction. It is an insult to our very reason for being. Mr. Moore should, in my view, be criticized for that. I reject the "libertarian binary" and do not ask if he is a real libertarian - I ask what he's done. In this instance, he's grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot. That doesn't mean that he's now "the enemy" - life is not actually like a movie where everyone must be a hero or a villain. The primary motivator of my libertarianism is the perception that our system is far too punitive and never gives (some) people another chance after a mistake. Let's not be like that. Mr. Moore is not Anakin crossing over to Sheldon Adelson's Empire. He's a legislator who made a vote which we find outrageous, wrong, and harmful. If he had vote the other way, others would have found his vote outrageous, wrong, and harmful. To be a public official is to bear responsibility for your actions in a way that your supporters do not, which grants the right and obligation to make the final decision. He made his decision. We disagree. We must remember, at the same time, that people are not automatons, and libertarian policy answers in a libertarian world are not always clear. In this case, I agree - it was clear. It will not always be, and we should be prepared for that. A successful party will be unable to keep track of the multitudes of votes cast by its legislators. A party simply cannot afford to be cast into such a state of panic as this over a single vote by one member of a state legislature. While the LP itself does not do so, I note that many libertarian organizations regularly criticize legislators for party line voting, when it suits them. When the people of a legislator's district desire something more libertarian than their party, the legislator will regularly be called out and criticized for not representing his district. We tend to attach meaning to the fact that a large majority desires an end to our endless wars, opposed the bailouts, and so on. My bottom line: we need a system that generates, promotes, and incentivizes Libertarian officeholders, in such a way that there are natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like. We need enough faith in Libertarian officeholders that we can disagree with votes in good faith, which means we need libertarian-enough officeholders for that to work. Mr. Moore's Privacy Within the LP, the same logic applies to us. We bear responsibility for our actions. We chose to give him $10,000, he didn't force us to do so. Our members, as I've said elsewhere, have the right to such information as they need to judge our performance, so that they can toss us out as desired. Mr. Moore is not a leader of this party, is not an LNC member, and his letter regarding his reasons for voting does not fall into that category. He did not lose his right to communicate privately with those who choose to communicate with him when he donated money to him. People have every right to send communications which they label confidential; recipients have the right to accept those terms or to not read the communication. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Moore's request for confidentiality; if LNC members do not wish to have their votes influenced by a confidential message, they have every right not to read it. Party Governance Ever since this vote, the LNC communications list has increased in volume. I am not critical of that, but I do wonder why the vote cast by a Nevada legislator is so much more capable of bringing us to life than governing our own party. Our membership has grown as a result of disgust with our opponents and enthusiasm over our Presidential ticket: what is our plan to retain those members? What is our plan to bring them into the fray, so to speak, and turn our new roof into strong walls? Donations are up, and we've done the accounting for the money we needed to do as a housekeeping measure. If we cover the money we should have spent last year on the mortgage but do not spend down more, we'll have a lot of extra cash on hand compared to where we expected to be. As a reminder, one of the arguments for buying an office rather than renting was improved cash flow in election years. So what new programs will we be performing with the money? What new services will we be offering, to add value beyond moving money from state to state? We can decide that there's nothing we need to do to strengthen this party that would profit from an improved cash flow position, and just take all the unexpected cash on hand to pay down the mortgage; maybe that's the right decision. Not all categories of donations are up, though. Recurring gifts are lower than budgeted. Do we have a plan for increasing recurring gifts, or for dealing with the likely results of our current position being more of a one-time windfall than a sustainable increase? This all brings me to a recurring point: boards have important functions. They provide leadership at the highest strategic levels. They provide accountability and oversight. When the board is more interested in the more exciting ideological goings-on than in minding the shop, the shop doesn't get minded. Let's spend some of this energy on being more accountable with our funds, improving our governance structures, and developing a long-term strategic vision that will give us more state legislators than we can possibly keep track of - along with institutional incentives and other structures that will increase the chances of those legislators, without our individual intervention, voting to move public policy in a libertarian direction. How Should Representatives Vote? It is my view that representatives, both on the LNC and in public office, are chosen for their broadly-defined positions, their judgment, and their vision. They are not meant to simply be echos for the majority of their constituents, however defined. A good representative will sometimes go against a large majority of their constituents - the constituents retain, of course, the ultimate power of recall. It's been mentioned on this list that Mr. Moore's constituents, at a ratio of about 60-40, favored the stadium. To me, this is not particularly helpful; legislators are supposed to vote based on their own judgment in the ultimate best interest of their constituents. In Mr. Moore's case, though, a problem arises. His voters didn't get what they expected. If the voters of a district elect a Libertarian, they know, or ought to know, what they're getting into. Even if they favor a particular government program, they should not be surprised to see their representative vote otherwise. When the voters elect a Republican, though, is it fair to say they should have expected a representative who opposes crony capitalism? This points to the need for more home-grown elected officials. That is not to say we should reject or turn away those who, after being elected because they wish to serve, realize that the greatest way to serve the public and improve the world is to be a Libertarian. It is to say we need more of our own, and we need to take actions to get there. We also cannot expect 100% party-line votes. Politics is a game of possibilities. Even home-grown elected Libertarians will face many incentives on each vote, and philosophy is only one. Responsible governance is another - sometimes, the ideal will have to be sacrificed for the real. Most of the time, there simply won't be a libertarian option - most questions that cross a public official's desk are perpendicular to the freedom question. The big, exciting, dramatic votes, though, do tend to have a larger freedom component than the more routine. Modern-day liberals seem to picture that government officials have a dial behind their desks. Turn it one way and inequality increases, turn it the other and inequality decreases, and nothing else changes. They cannot imagine, then, why some officials simply refuse to turn it in the equality direction. Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, picture a dial that determines the level of virtue in society. This virtue takes a few forms: the martial virtues, honor and respect, family values, but they tend to think they can all be increased uniformly (as though "family values" would not be impacted by sending our young people to war, for instance). Similarly, they find it astounding that anyone would turn the dial away from virtue. Libertarians need not pretend there's a dial controlling the level of freedom - we know, better than the average liberal or conservative, about the inescapable fact of trade-offs. We know that all else does not hold equal. I've defined my libertarianism as a presumption in favor of freedom, against regulation, in favor of the individual. It is our job to encourage the selection, growth, and election of Libertarians who can navigate those trade-offs effectively, steering the ship of state in a freedom direction without flipping the boat, keeping an eye out for icebergs. We need to do so because asking them to govern will mean trusting their judgment. I've heard the term "no brakes" used to describe the way I see Libertarian government, and while it was not meant as a compliment, I fully agree. There are no brakes; judgment is required at every step of the way, and when judgment is required, people will disagree. The Reception of Mr. Moore Mr. Moore, when he refected, (I believe everyone's first duty is to liberty, and so joining our party is not defecting, it is returning to one's roots), was our only state legislator. I believe our party, so used to lacking, reacted a bit in the vein of "me? You want to dance with me?" Mr. Moore was plastered on newspapers and media announcements as "hey, look, we have one now!" This was not fair to us, and not fair to him. Nor was this unhealthy, weird relationship unique. Over the years, as we've grown, as we've shown we're not going away, and as our competitors have given up the facade of caring about our values, a steady parade of high-profile politicians have marched into, and out of, this party. You don't need me to recite the names. Too often, this party is looking for a magic bullet, a shortcut to respectability, a champion, only to completely and utterly reject the person we've placed into that role when they, inevitably, disappoint us. (I can think of two exceptions, in the sense of people who were never really welcomed in the first place, simply immediately treated with "well, you'll never be our champion.") This is not a rant against refections. We should welcome those who see the value of affiliating with us with open arms, but not look to them as ways around the work of building our party. We should ask them to join with us in building the party, understanding that both partners will, at times, fall short of what was expected. I am against "get free quick schemes." There is no magic bullet, and time spent pursuing one is time spent not building this party in realistic ways. Refectors are not magic bullets. It is true that history shows that high-profile joiners is a major way for parties to grow, but they need to be incorporated into the fabric of a strong party. It is clear why it is not fair to us to treat refectors in this way, but Mr. Hayes points out ways in which it is also unfair to the refector. When it emerges, for whatever reason, that the person will not be our champion, that we would need to partner with them, support tends to falter. Moreover, a welcome ought to include some instruction as well as promotion. Does a new member, elected to office under other title, know how best to run for office as a Libertarian? Do they know how to operate in office as a Libertarian? Doing these things is harder than doing so as a Republican or Democrat. There is no natural cushion of support within the legislature, no instant reward for toeing the party line, less of a natural basis for cooperation, and no existent structure to nurture and instruct newcomers, slowly moving them into committee positions and so on. The party apparatus may need to take on these unfamiliar roles to replace what is usually served by a caucus, until the party's presence grows. We need to build nationwide networks of support - a new Libertarian legislator in state X can get the advice from a political strategist in state Y, a scholar of legislative action in state Z, and a Libertarian officeholder in state A that they'd ordinarily receive from their party's legislative leadership within their body. Instead, I think there's a tendency to think refectors come in as a finished product, and then to be shocked when that is not the case. The $10,000 Donation I think I, and others, have said a lot on this topic already, so I'll try not to add too much. I regret this vote. I also think mistakes will happen. We all noted that we hadn't been ordinarily doing this sort of thing. My own thought was that, while a committee would be preferable for many reasons, it made sense to try out a few on our own, as we did. That experience can solidify the criteria to be used, the strategic value, and so on. I absolutely believe that the board needs to be fiscally responsible and accountable. I do not believe in wasting money. That said, I do not believe in 0-risk budgeting either. If we adopt a rule that we should never make mistakes, we will have no growth. We should not, of course, be gambling with the member's money, and we should take responsibility when things do not work out, but we cannot allow ourselves to pursue only the safest, most secure options. I used to work for a private school whose Headmaster told the faculty we needed serious change. I told him that, if he really believed massive change was needed, he had to approach it unafraid - he had to be willing to embrace the sort of change that that would either make the school a massive success or shut it down within 2 years. I don't think that strategy makes sense for the LP, but neither does a strategy of 0 risk. We cannot be overly harsh when things do not work out, but we must learn from them. We don't want to create incentives to just keep doing what we've been doing instead of trying new things. It is true that we likely should have asked more about this donation - but we chose to give it, let's keep that clear. I personally don't think a contract is the way to go, and, as others have pointed out, it comes close to using money to influence government action. I think our best bet is to have a lot of Libertarian in office who have voting records - i.e. who have held prior offices with less far-reaching impacts and have a demonstrated record, over time, of moving public policy in a Libertarian direction. But this, I expect, will be a topic for discussion in December. Joshua A. Katz On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If there was discussion prior to the motion being made, then I was not privy to that nor can I speak to it. I do know that a bunch of votes were cast before we ever heard from Assemblyman Moore. That is not in dispute. I'm actually pretty amazed that Assemblyman Moore sent information to a jury that seems ready to convict regardless of his input. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-31 09:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken. You presume a great deal. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Daniel, A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time. Screenshots attached. Ken --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote: Ken, Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30 --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection. Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party. This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong. A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer. I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term. Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty. So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide. That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at. Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us. If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip. If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation. That's pretty much where I'm at on it. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote: We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization. If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize. Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand. Ken On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken, I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings." You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements. And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against. The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew? As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Fellow colleagues, I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message. It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps. I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly. With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today. Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area. I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear. I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.) Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005. Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members. Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here? * Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? * Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing? In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being. We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision. * In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. * In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills. We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive? Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm? Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party? So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary. What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish? Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well. So, in sum, I find as follows: * I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization. Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath Motion: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Joshua, I am fine with the notion that the electoral politics portion of our agenda is a serious endeavor provided that we keep our purpose and vision firmly locked in on the real goal of our political process: FREEDOM. Despite their rhetoric, the other political parties are focused on goals other than freedom. We should not fall into the trap of being mesmerized by the process of getting Libertarians elected to all levels of government. That goal, in and of itself, is extremely important but only if it leads to the end goal of freedom that we need to keep our eyes firmly fixed on. We need to differentiate our party by consistently advertising and acting in a way that makes it clear to all that our only end goal is freedom. Never forget that Libertarianism is the shining beacon of freedom, nothing more, nothing less. ~David Pratt Demarest, November 2, 2016 From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:23 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore It means the exact opposite. It suggests that the LP is a part of a larger whole, and that it need not try to be the whole, just to do its part. It is the political wing of a larger movement. Furthermore, politics is neither a game nor an amusing pastime. Our candidates and officeholders are not dilettantes. Politics is a serious endeavor, and we seek office for the sake of changing policy, not as an amusement. Electoral politics is a serious part of the equation of moving policy, and the larger equation of growing freedom. Joshua A. Katz On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:01 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net <mailto:dpdemarest@centurylink.net> > wrote: Joshua, I respectfully disagree. If the purpose of the LP is not the pursuit of freedom but merely to move public policy in a Libertarian direction, that suggests that the LP is an institutional end in and of itself and has a life of its own separate from the pursuit of freedom. The LP may not be the only institutional representative of the pursuit of freedom but it certainly is more than just an amusing pastime for political dilettantes to fill their lives with the game of getting Libertarians elected. In my estimation, the LP plays second fiddle to the goal of freedom but is the tool of choice to succeed in the pursuit of freedom. Thoughts? The War on Compulsory Authoritarian Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now ~David Pratt Demarest Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI) Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee Cell: 402-981-6469 <tel:402-981-6469> Home: 402-493-0873 <tel:402-493-0873> Office: 402-222-7207 <tel:402-222-7207> From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org> ] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:37 AM To: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> >; lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:lnc-business@hq.lp.org> Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore I have, also, been thinking about this. This email is not my vote; it is a collection of thoughts on topics raised by this question. The Big Picture The purpose of the LP is not, in my opinion, "to pursue freedom" or some variation. That's too broad, and it's the purpose of the entire freedom movement. Neither, though, is the purpose of the LP to elect candidates to office; that omits the fact that we do so for a reason. I believe our purpose is to change public policy in a libertarian direction, and to do so specifically by electing candidates to office (or otherwise getting them there). This is why it is particularly upsetting to us when Libertarians get into office (or, in this case, come into existence while in office) but then do not move public policy in that direction. It is an insult to our very reason for being. Mr. Moore should, in my view, be criticized for that. I reject the "libertarian binary" and do not ask if he is a real libertarian - I ask what he's done. In this instance, he's grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot. That doesn't mean that he's now "the enemy" - life is not actually like a movie where everyone must be a hero or a villain. The primary motivator of my libertarianism is the perception that our system is far too punitive and never gives (some) people another chance after a mistake. Let's not be like that. Mr. Moore is not Anakin crossing over to Sheldon Adelson's Empire. He's a legislator who made a vote which we find outrageous, wrong, and harmful. If he had vote the other way, others would have found his vote outrageous, wrong, and harmful. To be a public official is to bear responsibility for your actions in a way that your supporters do not, which grants the right and obligation to make the final decision. He made his decision. We disagree. We must remember, at the same time, that people are not automatons, and libertarian policy answers in a libertarian world are not always clear. In this case, I agree - it was clear. It will not always be, and we should be prepared for that. A successful party will be unable to keep track of the multitudes of votes cast by its legislators. A party simply cannot afford to be cast into such a state of panic as this over a single vote by one member of a state legislature. While the LP itself does not do so, I note that many libertarian organizations regularly criticize legislators for party line voting, when it suits them. When the people of a legislator's district desire something more libertarian than their party, the legislator will regularly be called out and criticized for not representing his district. We tend to attach meaning to the fact that a large majority desires an end to our endless wars, opposed the bailouts, and so on. My bottom line: we need a system that generates, promotes, and incentivizes Libertarian officeholders, in such a way that there are natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like. We need enough faith in Libertarian officeholders that we can disagree with votes in good faith, which means we need libertarian-enough officeholders for that to work. Mr. Moore's Privacy Within the LP, the same logic applies to us. We bear responsibility for our actions. We chose to give him $10,000, he didn't force us to do so. Our members, as I've said elsewhere, have the right to such information as they need to judge our performance, so that they can toss us out as desired. Mr. Moore is not a leader of this party, is not an LNC member, and his letter regarding his reasons for voting does not fall into that category. He did not lose his right to communicate privately with those who choose to communicate with him when he donated money to him. People have every right to send communications which they label confidential; recipients have the right to accept those terms or to not read the communication. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Moore's request for confidentiality; if LNC members do not wish to have their votes influenced by a confidential message, they have every right not to read it. Party Governance Ever since this vote, the LNC communications list has increased in volume. I am not critical of that, but I do wonder why the vote cast by a Nevada legislator is so much more capable of bringing us to life than governing our own party. Our membership has grown as a result of disgust with our opponents and enthusiasm over our Presidential ticket: what is our plan to retain those members? What is our plan to bring them into the fray, so to speak, and turn our new roof into strong walls? Donations are up, and we've done the accounting for the money we needed to do as a housekeeping measure. If we cover the money we should have spent last year on the mortgage but do not spend down more, we'll have a lot of extra cash on hand compared to where we expected to be. As a reminder, one of the arguments for buying an office rather than renting was improved cash flow in election years. So what new programs will we be performing with the money? What new services will we be offering, to add value beyond moving money from state to state? We can decide that there's nothing we need to do to strengthen this party that would profit from an improved cash flow position, and just take all the unexpected cash on hand to pay down the mortgage; maybe that's the right decision. Not all categories of donations are up, though. Recurring gifts are lower than budgeted. Do we have a plan for increasing recurring gifts, or for dealing with the likely results of our current position being more of a one-time windfall than a sustainable increase? This all brings me to a recurring point: boards have important functions. They provide leadership at the highest strategic levels. They provide accountability and oversight. When the board is more interested in the more exciting ideological goings-on than in minding the shop, the shop doesn't get minded. Let's spend some of this energy on being more accountable with our funds, improving our governance structures, and developing a long-term strategic vision that will give us more state legislators than we can possibly keep track of - along with institutional incentives and other structures that will increase the chances of those legislators, without our individual intervention, voting to move public policy in a libertarian direction. How Should Representatives Vote? It is my view that representatives, both on the LNC and in public office, are chosen for their broadly-defined positions, their judgment, and their vision. They are not meant to simply be echos for the majority of their constituents, however defined. A good representative will sometimes go against a large majority of their constituents - the constituents retain, of course, the ultimate power of recall. It's been mentioned on this list that Mr. Moore's constituents, at a ratio of about 60-40, favored the stadium. To me, this is not particularly helpful; legislators are supposed to vote based on their own judgment in the ultimate best interest of their constituents. In Mr. Moore's case, though, a problem arises. His voters didn't get what they expected. If the voters of a district elect a Libertarian, they know, or ought to know, what they're getting into. Even if they favor a particular government program, they should not be surprised to see their representative vote otherwise. When the voters elect a Republican, though, is it fair to say they should have expected a representative who opposes crony capitalism? This points to the need for more home-grown elected officials. That is not to say we should reject or turn away those who, after being elected because they wish to serve, realize that the greatest way to serve the public and improve the world is to be a Libertarian. It is to say we need more of our own, and we need to take actions to get there. We also cannot expect 100% party-line votes. Politics is a game of possibilities. Even home-grown elected Libertarians will face many incentives on each vote, and philosophy is only one. Responsible governance is another - sometimes, the ideal will have to be sacrificed for the real. Most of the time, there simply won't be a libertarian option - most questions that cross a public official's desk are perpendicular to the freedom question. The big, exciting, dramatic votes, though, do tend to have a larger freedom component than the more routine. Modern-day liberals seem to picture that government officials have a dial behind their desks. Turn it one way and inequality increases, turn it the other and inequality decreases, and nothing else changes. They cannot imagine, then, why some officials simply refuse to turn it in the equality direction. Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, picture a dial that determines the level of virtue in society. This virtue takes a few forms: the martial virtues, honor and respect, family values, but they tend to think they can all be increased uniformly (as though "family values" would not be impacted by sending our young people to war, for instance). Similarly, they find it astounding that anyone would turn the dial away from virtue. Libertarians need not pretend there's a dial controlling the level of freedom - we know, better than the average liberal or conservative, about the inescapable fact of trade-offs. We know that all else does not hold equal. I've defined my libertarianism as a presumption in favor of freedom, against regulation, in favor of the individual. It is our job to encourage the selection, growth, and election of Libertarians who can navigate those trade-offs effectively, steering the ship of state in a freedom direction without flipping the boat, keeping an eye out for icebergs. We need to do so because asking them to govern will mean trusting their judgment. I've heard the term "no brakes" used to describe the way I see Libertarian government, and while it was not meant as a compliment, I fully agree. There are no brakes; judgment is required at every step of the way, and when judgment is required, people will disagree. The Reception of Mr. Moore Mr. Moore, when he refected, (I believe everyone's first duty is to liberty, and so joining our party is not defecting, it is returning to one's roots), was our only state legislator. I believe our party, so used to lacking, reacted a bit in the vein of "me? You want to dance with me?" Mr. Moore was plastered on newspapers and media announcements as "hey, look, we have one now!" This was not fair to us, and not fair to him. Nor was this unhealthy, weird relationship unique. Over the years, as we've grown, as we've shown we're not going away, and as our competitors have given up the facade of caring about our values, a steady parade of high-profile politicians have marched into, and out of, this party. You don't need me to recite the names. Too often, this party is looking for a magic bullet, a shortcut to respectability, a champion, only to completely and utterly reject the person we've placed into that role when they, inevitably, disappoint us. (I can think of two exceptions, in the sense of people who were never really welcomed in the first place, simply immediately treated with "well, you'll never be our champion.") This is not a rant against refections. We should welcome those who see the value of affiliating with us with open arms, but not look to them as ways around the work of building our party. We should ask them to join with us in building the party, understanding that both partners will, at times, fall short of what was expected. I am against "get free quick schemes." There is no magic bullet, and time spent pursuing one is time spent not building this party in realistic ways. Refectors are not magic bullets. It is true that history shows that high-profile joiners is a major way for parties to grow, but they need to be incorporated into the fabric of a strong party. It is clear why it is not fair to us to treat refectors in this way, but Mr. Hayes points out ways in which it is also unfair to the refector. When it emerges, for whatever reason, that the person will not be our champion, that we would need to partner with them, support tends to falter. Moreover, a welcome ought to include some instruction as well as promotion. Does a new member, elected to office under other title, know how best to run for office as a Libertarian? Do they know how to operate in office as a Libertarian? Doing these things is harder than doing so as a Republican or Democrat. There is no natural cushion of support within the legislature, no instant reward for toeing the party line, less of a natural basis for cooperation, and no existent structure to nurture and instruct newcomers, slowly moving them into committee positions and so on. The party apparatus may need to take on these unfamiliar roles to replace what is usually served by a caucus, until the party's presence grows. We need to build nationwide networks of support - a new Libertarian legislator in state X can get the advice from a political strategist in state Y, a scholar of legislative action in state Z, and a Libertarian officeholder in state A that they'd ordinarily receive from their party's legislative leadership within their body. Instead, I think there's a tendency to think refectors come in as a finished product, and then to be shocked when that is not the case. The $10,000 Donation I think I, and others, have said a lot on this topic already, so I'll try not to add too much. I regret this vote. I also think mistakes will happen. We all noted that we hadn't been ordinarily doing this sort of thing. My own thought was that, while a committee would be preferable for many reasons, it made sense to try out a few on our own, as we did. That experience can solidify the criteria to be used, the strategic value, and so on. I absolutely believe that the board needs to be fiscally responsible and accountable. I do not believe in wasting money. That said, I do not believe in 0-risk budgeting either. If we adopt a rule that we should never make mistakes, we will have no growth. We should not, of course, be gambling with the member's money, and we should take responsibility when things do not work out, but we cannot allow ourselves to pursue only the safest, most secure options. I used to work for a private school whose Headmaster told the faculty we needed serious change. I told him that, if he really believed massive change was needed, he had to approach it unafraid - he had to be willing to embrace the sort of change that that would either make the school a massive success or shut it down within 2 years. I don't think that strategy makes sense for the LP, but neither does a strategy of 0 risk. We cannot be overly harsh when things do not work out, but we must learn from them. We don't want to create incentives to just keep doing what we've been doing instead of trying new things. It is true that we likely should have asked more about this donation - but we chose to give it, let's keep that clear. I personally don't think a contract is the way to go, and, as others have pointed out, it comes close to using money to influence government action. I think our best bet is to have a lot of Libertarian in office who have voting records - i.e. who have held prior offices with less far-reaching impacts and have a demonstrated record, over time, of moving public policy in a Libertarian direction. But this, I expect, will be a topic for discussion in December. Joshua A. Katz On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If there was discussion prior to the motion being made, then I was not privy to that nor can I speak to it. I do know that a bunch of votes were cast before we ever heard from Assemblyman Moore. That is not in dispute. I'm actually pretty amazed that Assemblyman Moore sent information to a jury that seems ready to convict regardless of his input. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-31 09:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken. You presume a great deal. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Daniel, A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time. Screenshots attached. Ken --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote: Ken, Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30 --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection. Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party. This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong. A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer. I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term. Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty. So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide. That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at. Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us. If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip. If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation. That's pretty much where I'm at on it. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote: We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy. Daniel Hayes LNC At Large Member Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization. If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize. Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand. Ken On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote: Ken, I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings." You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements. And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against. The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew? As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard. -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org/> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org <mailto:ken.moellman@lpky.org> > wrote: Fellow colleagues, I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message. It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps. I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly. With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today. Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area. I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear. I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.) Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005. Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members. Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here? * Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? * Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing? In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being. We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision. * In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. * In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills. We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive? Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm? Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party? So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary. What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish? Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well. So, in sum, I find as follows: * I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. * I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. * I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. * I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. * I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. * I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. * Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization. Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay. If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning. --- Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote: We have an electronic mail ballot. Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time. Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath Motion: Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats; Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian. -Alicia _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org -- In Liberty, Caryn Ann Harlos Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org <mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos@LP.org> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado <http://www.lpcolorado.org> Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus <http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org> _______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org <mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

Thanks, Caryn. I agree there should be formal notification in a situation like this, whether by the chair or by staff. It would perhaps be useful to establish a standing protocol for that, so there isn't a question each time we pass a resolution on how it will be carried out and disseminated, and we won't need to worry about the need to write those details into each motion. Love & Liberty, ((( starchild ))) At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee (415) 625-FREE @StarchildSF On Nov 2, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I asked that the Chair make arrangements for formal notification to be sent to Assemblyman Moore as our resolution involves a request for repayment.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:40 AM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote: Joshua,

I am fine with the notion that the electoral politics portion of our agenda is a serious endeavor provided that we keep our purpose and vision firmly locked in on the real goal of our political process: FREEDOM.

Despite their rhetoric, the other political parties are focused on goals other than freedom. We should not fall into the trap of being mesmerized by the process of getting Libertarians elected to all levels of government. That goal, in and of itself, is extremely important but only if it leads to the end goal of freedom that we need to keep our eyes firmly fixed on. We need to differentiate our party by consistently advertising and acting in a way that makes it clear to all that our only end goal is freedom.

Never forget that Libertarianism is the shining beacon of freedom, nothing more, nothing less.

~David Pratt Demarest, November 2, 2016

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:23 AM To: lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

It means the exact opposite. It suggests that the LP is a part of a larger whole, and that it need not try to be the whole, just to do its part. It is the political wing of a larger movement.

Furthermore, politics is neither a game nor an amusing pastime. Our candidates and officeholders are not dilettantes. Politics is a serious endeavor, and we seek office for the sake of changing policy, not as an amusement. Electoral politics is a serious part of the equation of moving policy, and the larger equation of growing freedom.

Joshua A. Katz

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:01 PM, David Demarest <dpdemarest@centurylink.net> wrote:

Joshua, I respectfully disagree. If the purpose of the LP is not the pursuit of freedom but merely to move public policy in a Libertarian direction, that suggests that the LP is an institutional end in and of itself and has a life of its own separate from the pursuit of freedom. The LP may not be the only institutional representative of the pursuit of freedom but it certainly is more than just an amusing pastime for political dilettantes to fill their lives with the game of getting Libertarians elected. In my estimation, the LP plays second fiddle to the goal of freedom but is the tool of choice to succeed in the pursuit of freedom.

Thoughts?

The War on Compulsory Authoritarian Majority Rule Cronyism Begins Now

~David Pratt Demarest

Region 6 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (IA, IL, MN, MO, ND, NE, WI)

Secretary, Nebraska Libertarian State Central Committee

Nebraska State Coordinator, LP Radical Caucus

Secretary Pro Tem, LNC Affiliate Support Committee

Cell: 402-981-6469

Home: 402-493-0873

Office: 402-222-7207

From: Lnc-business [mailto:lnc-business-bounces@hq.lp.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Katz Sent: Monday, October 31, 2016 10:37 AM To: Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org>; lnc-business@hq.lp.org Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Email Ballot 2016-15: Censure John Moore

I have, also, been thinking about this. This email is not my vote; it is a collection of thoughts on topics raised by this question.

The Big Picture

The purpose of the LP is not, in my opinion, "to pursue freedom" or some variation. That's too broad, and it's the purpose of the entire freedom movement. Neither, though, is the purpose of the LP to elect candidates to office; that omits the fact that we do so for a reason. I believe our purpose is to change public policy in a libertarian direction, and to do so specifically by electing candidates to office (or otherwise getting them there).

This is why it is particularly upsetting to us when Libertarians get into office (or, in this case, come into existence while in office) but then do not move public policy in that direction. It is an insult to our very reason for being.

Mr. Moore should, in my view, be criticized for that. I reject the "libertarian binary" and do not ask if he is a real libertarian - I ask what he's done. In this instance, he's grown government, and in one of the most offensive ways to boot. That doesn't mean that he's now "the enemy" - life is not actually like a movie where everyone must be a hero or a villain. The primary motivator of my libertarianism is the perception that our system is far too punitive and never gives (some) people another chance after a mistake. Let's not be like that. Mr. Moore is not Anakin crossing over to Sheldon Adelson's Empire. He's a legislator who made a vote which we find outrageous, wrong, and harmful. If he had vote the other way, others would have found his vote outrageous, wrong, and harmful. To be a public official is to bear responsibility for your actions in a way that your supporters do not, which grants the right and obligation to make the final decision. He made his decision. We disagree.

We must remember, at the same time, that people are not automatons, and libertarian policy answers in a libertarian world are not always clear. In this case, I agree - it was clear. It will not always be, and we should be prepared for that. A successful party will be unable to keep track of the multitudes of votes cast by its legislators. A party simply cannot afford to be cast into such a state of panic as this over a single vote by one member of a state legislature.

While the LP itself does not do so, I note that many libertarian organizations regularly criticize legislators for party line voting, when it suits them. When the people of a legislator's district desire something more libertarian than their party, the legislator will regularly be called out and criticized for not representing his district. We tend to attach meaning to the fact that a large majority desires an end to our endless wars, opposed the bailouts, and so on.

My bottom line: we need a system that generates, promotes, and incentivizes Libertarian officeholders, in such a way that there are natural, systemic reasons to vote as we'd like. We need enough faith in Libertarian officeholders that we can disagree with votes in good faith, which means we need libertarian-enough officeholders for that to work.

Mr. Moore's Privacy

Within the LP, the same logic applies to us. We bear responsibility for our actions. We chose to give him $10,000, he didn't force us to do so. Our members, as I've said elsewhere, have the right to such information as they need to judge our performance, so that they can toss us out as desired. Mr. Moore is not a leader of this party, is not an LNC member, and his letter regarding his reasons for voting does not fall into that category. He did not lose his right to communicate privately with those who choose to communicate with him when he donated money to him. People have every right to send communications which they label confidential; recipients have the right to accept those terms or to not read the communication. I see nothing wrong with Mr. Moore's request for confidentiality; if LNC members do not wish to have their votes influenced by a confidential message, they have every right not to read it.

Party Governance

Ever since this vote, the LNC communications list has increased in volume. I am not critical of that, but I do wonder why the vote cast by a Nevada legislator is so much more capable of bringing us to life than governing our own party. Our membership has grown as a result of disgust with our opponents and enthusiasm over our Presidential ticket: what is our plan to retain those members? What is our plan to bring them into the fray, so to speak, and turn our new roof into strong walls?

Donations are up, and we've done the accounting for the money we needed to do as a housekeeping measure. If we cover the money we should have spent last year on the mortgage but do not spend down more, we'll have a lot of extra cash on hand compared to where we expected to be. As a reminder, one of the arguments for buying an office rather than renting was improved cash flow in election years. So what new programs will we be performing with the money? What new services will we be offering, to add value beyond moving money from state to state? We can decide that there's nothing we need to do to strengthen this party that would profit from an improved cash flow position, and just take all the unexpected cash on hand to pay down the mortgage; maybe that's the right decision.

Not all categories of donations are up, though. Recurring gifts are lower than budgeted. Do we have a plan for increasing recurring gifts, or for dealing with the likely results of our current position being more of a one-time windfall than a sustainable increase?

This all brings me to a recurring point: boards have important functions. They provide leadership at the highest strategic levels. They provide accountability and oversight. When the board is more interested in the more exciting ideological goings-on than in minding the shop, the shop doesn't get minded.

Let's spend some of this energy on being more accountable with our funds, improving our governance structures, and developing a long-term strategic vision that will give us more state legislators than we can possibly keep track of - along with institutional incentives and other structures that will increase the chances of those legislators, without our individual intervention, voting to move public policy in a libertarian direction.

How Should Representatives Vote?

It is my view that representatives, both on the LNC and in public office, are chosen for their broadly-defined positions, their judgment, and their vision. They are not meant to simply be echos for the majority of their constituents, however defined. A good representative will sometimes go against a large majority of their constituents - the constituents retain, of course, the ultimate power of recall.

It's been mentioned on this list that Mr. Moore's constituents, at a ratio of about 60-40, favored the stadium. To me, this is not particularly helpful; legislators are supposed to vote based on their own judgment in the ultimate best interest of their constituents. In Mr. Moore's case, though, a problem arises. His voters didn't get what they expected. If the voters of a district elect a Libertarian, they know, or ought to know, what they're getting into. Even if they favor a particular government program, they should not be surprised to see their representative vote otherwise. When the voters elect a Republican, though, is it fair to say they should have expected a representative who opposes crony capitalism?

This points to the need for more home-grown elected officials. That is not to say we should reject or turn away those who, after being elected because they wish to serve, realize that the greatest way to serve the public and improve the world is to be a Libertarian. It is to say we need more of our own, and we need to take actions to get there.

We also cannot expect 100% party-line votes. Politics is a game of possibilities. Even home-grown elected Libertarians will face many incentives on each vote, and philosophy is only one. Responsible governance is another - sometimes, the ideal will have to be sacrificed for the real. Most of the time, there simply won't be a libertarian option - most questions that cross a public official's desk are perpendicular to the freedom question. The big, exciting, dramatic votes, though, do tend to have a larger freedom component than the more routine.

Modern-day liberals seem to picture that government officials have a dial behind their desks. Turn it one way and inequality increases, turn it the other and inequality decreases, and nothing else changes. They cannot imagine, then, why some officials simply refuse to turn it in the equality direction.

Modern-day conservatives, on the other hand, picture a dial that determines the level of virtue in society. This virtue takes a few forms: the martial virtues, honor and respect, family values, but they tend to think they can all be increased uniformly (as though "family values" would not be impacted by sending our young people to war, for instance). Similarly, they find it astounding that anyone would turn the dial away from virtue.

Libertarians need not pretend there's a dial controlling the level of freedom - we know, better than the average liberal or conservative, about the inescapable fact of trade-offs. We know that all else does not hold equal. I've defined my libertarianism as a presumption in favor of freedom, against regulation, in favor of the individual.

It is our job to encourage the selection, growth, and election of Libertarians who can navigate those trade-offs effectively, steering the ship of state in a freedom direction without flipping the boat, keeping an eye out for icebergs. We need to do so because asking them to govern will mean trusting their judgment. I've heard the term "no brakes" used to describe the way I see Libertarian government, and while it was not meant as a compliment, I fully agree. There are no brakes; judgment is required at every step of the way, and when judgment is required, people will disagree.

The Reception of Mr. Moore

Mr. Moore, when he refected, (I believe everyone's first duty is to liberty, and so joining our party is not defecting, it is returning to one's roots), was our only state legislator. I believe our party, so used to lacking, reacted a bit in the vein of "me? You want to dance with me?" Mr. Moore was plastered on newspapers and media announcements as "hey, look, we have one now!" This was not fair to us, and not fair to him.

Nor was this unhealthy, weird relationship unique. Over the years, as we've grown, as we've shown we're not going away, and as our competitors have given up the facade of caring about our values, a steady parade of high-profile politicians have marched into, and out of, this party. You don't need me to recite the names. Too often, this party is looking for a magic bullet, a shortcut to respectability, a champion, only to completely and utterly reject the person we've placed into that role when they, inevitably, disappoint us. (I can think of two exceptions, in the sense of people who were never really welcomed in the first place, simply immediately treated with "well, you'll never be our champion.")

This is not a rant against refections. We should welcome those who see the value of affiliating with us with open arms, but not look to them as ways around the work of building our party. We should ask them to join with us in building the party, understanding that both partners will, at times, fall short of what was expected. I am against "get free quick schemes." There is no magic bullet, and time spent pursuing one is time spent not building this party in realistic ways. Refectors are not magic bullets. It is true that history shows that high-profile joiners is a major way for parties to grow, but they need to be incorporated into the fabric of a strong party.

It is clear why it is not fair to us to treat refectors in this way, but Mr. Hayes points out ways in which it is also unfair to the refector. When it emerges, for whatever reason, that the person will not be our champion, that we would need to partner with them, support tends to falter. Moreover, a welcome ought to include some instruction as well as promotion. Does a new member, elected to office under other title, know how best to run for office as a Libertarian? Do they know how to operate in office as a Libertarian? Doing these things is harder than doing so as a Republican or Democrat. There is no natural cushion of support within the legislature, no instant reward for toeing the party line, less of a natural basis for cooperation, and no existent structure to nurture and instruct newcomers, slowly moving them into committee positions and so on. The party apparatus may need to take on these unfamiliar roles to replace what is usually served by a caucus, until the party's presence grows. We need to build nationwide networks of support - a new Libertarian legislator in state X can get the advice from a political strategist in state Y, a scholar of legislative action in state Z, and a Libertarian officeholder in state A that they'd ordinarily receive from their party's legislative leadership within their body. Instead, I think there's a tendency to think refectors come in as a finished product, and then to be shocked when that is not the case.

The $10,000 Donation

I think I, and others, have said a lot on this topic already, so I'll try not to add too much. I regret this vote. I also think mistakes will happen. We all noted that we hadn't been ordinarily doing this sort of thing. My own thought was that, while a committee would be preferable for many reasons, it made sense to try out a few on our own, as we did. That experience can solidify the criteria to be used, the strategic value, and so on.

I absolutely believe that the board needs to be fiscally responsible and accountable. I do not believe in wasting money. That said, I do not believe in 0-risk budgeting either. If we adopt a rule that we should never make mistakes, we will have no growth. We should not, of course, be gambling with the member's money, and we should take responsibility when things do not work out, but we cannot allow ourselves to pursue only the safest, most secure options.

I used to work for a private school whose Headmaster told the faculty we needed serious change. I told him that, if he really believed massive change was needed, he had to approach it unafraid - he had to be willing to embrace the sort of change that that would either make the school a massive success or shut it down within 2 years. I don't think that strategy makes sense for the LP, but neither does a strategy of 0 risk. We cannot be overly harsh when things do not work out, but we must learn from them. We don't want to create incentives to just keep doing what we've been doing instead of trying new things. It is true that we likely should have asked more about this donation - but we chose to give it, let's keep that clear. I personally don't think a contract is the way to go, and, as others have pointed out, it comes close to using money to influence government action. I think our best bet is to have a lot of Libertarian in office who have voting records - i.e. who have held prior offices with less far-reaching impacts and have a demonstrated record, over time, of moving public policy in a Libertarian direction. But this, I expect, will be a topic for discussion in December.

Joshua A. Katz

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If there was discussion prior to the motion being made, then I was not privy to that nor can I speak to it.

I do know that a bunch of votes were cast before we ever heard from Assemblyman Moore. That is not in dispute. I'm actually pretty amazed that Assemblyman Moore sent information to a jury that seems ready to convict regardless of his input.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-31 09:05, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

And Ken, if you think what happens on the list is the extent of the information-gathering of people, you are sadly mistaken. You presume a great deal.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Daniel,

A search of my email shows the discussion began on 10/20 at 8:45PM Eastern Time, with the request for co-sponsors. The number of required cosponsored was reached on 10/21 at 4:01AM Eastern Time. The email ballot was created on 10/22 at 1:20AM Eastern Time.

Screenshots attached.

Ken

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-31 06:34, Daniel Hayes wrote:

Ken,

Your analysis is exceptionally flawed and seems to be reflecting some emotional response on your part to the responses of others that you don't think line up with your perceived method and timeline for reaching this conclusion. Your timeline entirely ignores the time and discussions surrounding the co sponsoring of the motion.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 31, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

From my perspective, the timeline of events clearly shows emotion, not information or analysis, as the driver for many votes.

Motion made 10/21 Ballot created 10/22 Multiple votes cast 10/22 Important information provided 10/30

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 23:57, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

I have put out my rationale as well and object to your attempted dismissal of my reasoning as emotional. It is not and that is a simplistic way to dismiss principled objection.

Yes horrified. And I expect members will be too. And at your attempt to dismiss me with the trite "emotional" canard.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sunday, October 30, 2016, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Horrified? I'm horrified at the knee-jerk reaction on emotion, without consideration of the facts or the long-term consequences, by those charged with the management of a national political party.

This entire vote has been predicated on emotional reaction. Multiple members of this committee voted before all the facts were in. Members were, in fact, encouraged to do so. The members "can always change their vote". Sure. Of course, the psychology of that sort of switch is well known as it would have to be the admission of a mistake. It's the same reason incumbents are re-elected even though they suck. It's hard for the human mind to admit it was wrong.

A healthy organization is run by rational leaders who act based on information and analysis. At a minimum, a better series of events might have been to first gather all of the facts as to what happened, including speaking to the candidate, prior to a motion for an email ballot with a set 10-day timer.

I know my decision won't be popular internally within the party. After a decade in state party leadership, I know that you sometimes have to do what is immediately unpopular for the long-term good of the party and hope that the members (eventually) recognize the wisdom of the action over the long-term.

Anyway, I've laid out my rationale for my vote, and I'm personally set in my decision. I spent a week on it, as I outlined in my email. I'm not going to change my mind, and I doubt you'll change yours. I only hope that every member considers the long-term over the immediate.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 21:18, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Sticking to our principles (and heck, not voting for a crony capitalist theft-funded handout to corporate interests is as basic as it gets) can ALWAYS seem that way. It seems like we should just jettison the Statement of Principles now. It isn't selling presently in Peoria. And THAT is how the Libertarian Party becomes utterly irrelevant to anything that leads to true liberty.

So basically where you are at is that we water down even basic stances because anything else will be suicide.

That may be where you are at. That is not where I am at. That is not what the Bylaws for our organization stating we exist to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles is at.

Voting no on stadium subsidies is so basic that if we can't be firm on that, we stand for nothing. I am absolutely horrified at the implications of what you saying.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we were all so worried about this stadium, then why the hell we're we out doing something about it? What did this body do? What did its members do? Jack squat. Instead, we said "oh, we'll let our elected guy go jump on that grenade" and then we got mad when he didn't. Wow. How courageous and principled of us.

If we demand that elected Libertarians commit political harikiri, then we'll never get new Ls elected, and we'll never get incumbents to flip.

If we're never going to get people elected, then this is all a huge waste of time. Education is better done through 501(c) organizations. At least then I can get a tax break for my donation.

That's pretty much where I'm at on it.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-30 20:17, Daniel Hayes wrote:

We are doomed because Libertarians seem to think we are a true democracy.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 30, 2016, at 7:01 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

If we, as an organization, are to demand 100% compliance of our L-branded elected officials, even if it goes against the will of their constituency, then we are a doomed organization.

If I misunderstood your statement in response to the audacious caucus, then I apologize.

Everything else is not relevant to the topic at hand.

Ken

On 10/30/2016 03:27 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:

Ken,

I characterized your response to the original motion as being silly because that is how you treated it. If you didn't wish to be seen that way, perhaps you should have not engaged in such rhetorical flourishes as asking about "spankings."

You further mischaracterized a statement of mine. I did not defend the LNC decision by saying there was "discussion and analysis" - I countered the members' suggestion that there was not an "iota" of consideration by stating there was certainly that. The consideration may have been dead wrong, but it was there. Please do not miscast my statements.

And should an elected Libertarian go against the "will" of his constituents? Yes. When it is committing state aggression and expanding government in the most egregious of ways as stealing from people to fund a private interest? Absolutely and utterly and a million times yes. With all due respect, I find your support for your vote - and you are most certainly entitled to it - the basest of justifications that is the death of libertarian principle if consistently applied. I am glad to stand against.

The comparison to Oregon is ill placed. Some members of Oregon asked us to interfere with the internal governance of the affiliate. This is absolutely apples and oranges as this motion has to do with the fact that WE gave money. This has been made clear many times. And as to your ultimate question, if we improperly vetted or were negligent in any way, yes the LNC should be censured by members. The assertion of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy is what is truly scary - as if there are not any definitional characteristics of Libertarianism. Wow. That is a fallacious use of that fallacy, since it never was intended to be used with truly definitional characteristics but on making extraneous characteristics definitional. A Scotsman IS someone born in Scotland. According to your use, that is a fallacious and that turns the fallacy on its head. Unless funding stadium has now become Libertarian. Who knew?

As far as who the Audacious Caucus is, it is a group of members. That is all we should care about. I am not part of them (they not my biggest fans, trust me), but they are members who's voice deserves to be heard.

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Harlos@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Ken Moellman <ken.moellman@lpky.org> wrote:

Fellow colleagues,

I have a long message prefacing my vote. If you are only interested in my vote, you may wish to skip to the bottom of my message.

It's recently been said that I find the censure issue "silly". That's an incorrect characterization of my thoughts on this matter. To come to a decision on this, I've taken multiple steps.

I have thought long and hard about this issue. I've observed the sentiments of you, my colleagues on the LNC. I have spoken with some others, as well, both inside and outside the party, to gauge my feelings against the real world. And I have read the letter from Assemblyman Moore, sent to members of the LNC in confidence. All along, I've taken notes and reviewed those notes repeatedly.

With the vote deadline impending, and wanting to give the primary Region 3 Representative appropriate time to counter my vote, if he desires to do so, I give you my thoughts and vote today.

Assemblyman Moore's letter clarified what the "Cops Tax" actually was, and I believe some people have a mistaken impression on what it is. Based on Assemblyman Moore's explanation of this tax, one could even consider this vote in-line with libertarianism, if you believe that the local entities should have control of their own local area.

I do still personally object to the vote on the "Stadium Tax", though the context provided by Assemblyman Moore does help make the situation a bit more clear.

I also realize that Assemblyman Moore was under a lot of pressure. LPNV was clearly against the measure, and Moore had previously voted against taxes in the immediate-past session. However, the stadium is to be built in his very own district. It will likely cause property values to increase in his district. Polling run by Assemblyman Moore himself suggests that over 60% of the people of his district wanted it. I'm also told, through sources, that failure to vote for the stadium would have no effect on the outcome - that others were prepared to flip their vote, in exchange for this or that. Failing to vote for the measure would have made him a political target within his own district, however, as 60% of the people in his district apparently approve of the project. (Side note: I knew about the "over 60% support in his district" without Assemblyman Moore's confidential email.)

Even then, one can claim that Assemblyman Moore should have said "no" anyway. He should have committed political harikiri, for the principle of it. I probably would have, personally, since the Kelo decision was what drove me back into politics in 2005.

Personally, I blame us for the failure to change the public's mind on these types of issues. We failed. We didn't give our candidate the way to say "no" without taking a massive political hit only 2 weeks before the election. We failed our candidate. We failed our members.

Should we take our failings public in a very visible way? Are we telling the world, "Hey world, look here at this!"? What are the optics here?

Should we censure the candidate? Should we blast the candidate for not falling on his sword? Do we expect this action to be beneficial toward a long-term strategy to getting other elected officials to flip to the LP? Should we send a public message that, if elected, the Libertarian Party expects Libertarians to ignore the will of those we're supposed to be representing?

In replying to the "censure" from the Audacious Caucus (again, who are these people?), there was a defense of the LNC given as "there was discussion and analysis" on the part of the LNC. Is that really a good defense? You don't think that John Moore had engaged in "discussion and analysis" prior to casting his vote? Of course he did. I've met him, and he wasn't drinking from a juice box and didn't drool on himself. He's a rational and functional human being.

We all do math, weighing pros and cons, before making a decision.

In the LNC's case, the actions we took when we sent financial support to Assemblyman Moore, based on our math, expressed solidarity with those existing politicians who come to the LP. That was my math, anyway. In Moore's case, his math showed a benefit to voting for these bills.

We obviously didn't like Assembyman Moore's math. So now, the members of this body are doing math again. But does that math result in the passage of this motion to censure before us, and would its passage be in the best interests of this party, long term? Or is this motion simply an acting out based on anger or revenge? Is to save face, and if so, internally or externally? Is this body acting to protect itself from the criticism of its own members, or to accomplish something positive?

Moore's vote can't be changed now. So, what is the good that will be accomplished by the passage of this motion? Does it outweigh the harm?

Additionally, I have a very serious fear that the passage of this motion would open Pandora's Box. If we censure Moore today, then why not others? Why not Weld, who as arguably our #2 spokesperson has endorsed at least 2 Rs over Ls in the same race? Why not Perry, who is acting in defiance of the will of the very body we are supposed to represent while holding an active leadership role within the party? Why not the LNC, for improperly vetting prior to donating, as the Audacious caucus (whoever they are) pointed out? And so on, and so on, and so on. Are we not opening ourselves up to more of the "No True Scotsman" garbage that already infects and cripples this party?

So, no, I don't find this issue of censure "silly" at all. I find it downright scary.

What I find frustrating is our organization's apparent need to publicly focus on what is both wrong and unchangeable within our organization, rather than focusing on what is right. We should be focused on doing more of what's right. What the heck does this motion even accomplish?

Finally, it is my understanding that LPNV hasn't even made an official request to have the LNC intervene; that some members of the party have made this request. Once upon a time, some members of the party Oregon asked the LNC to intervene in Oregon. That didn't turn out so well.

So, in sum, I find as follows:

I disagree with Assemblyman Moore's vote. I believe we need to do everything we can to politically support our candidates' ability to make philosophically good votes. I believe that the optics of a public censure are good internally within the party, but are horrible outside the party. I believe this motion is more about making ourselves feel good rather than accomplishing something positive. I believe we should we note what's happened, and take corrective action to try to prevent this from happening in the future. I believe the current level of action taken by LPNV does not warrant LNC action, nor has LPNV asked for our involvement. Most importantly, I believe the motion for censure is dangerous to the long-term health of this organization.

Therefore, in my role as Region 3 Alternate, I vote Nay.

If you disagree with my vote, and skipped to the bottom, I encourage you to go back to the beginning.

---

Ken C. Moellman, Jr. LNC Region 3 Alternate Representative LPKY Judicial Committee

On 2016-10-22 01:20, Alicia Mattson wrote:

We have an electronic mail ballot.

Votes are due to the LNC-Business list by October 31, 2016 at 11:59:59pm Pacific time.

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Demarest, Hayes, Vohra, Starchild, Goldstein, Redpath

Motion:

Whereas Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, a former Republican who in January 2016 switched to the Libertarian Party while in office, has during the past month voted not once but twice in the span of as many days to raise taxes on his constituents, including a vote to support a "More Cops" tax which the Libertarian Party of Nevada has tirelessly and thus far successfully opposed, and a vote to provide a $750 million subsidy to finance a billionaire-owned sports stadium at the expense of, among others, indigent persons renting weekly rooms in motels; and

Whereas the elected leaders of our state affiliate party in Nevada have rightfully voted to censure Assemblyman Moore for these egregious votes; and

Whereas we wish to convey a strong message to all and sundry that while we welcome sitting legislators in the Republican or Democrat parties who decide to switch to the Libertarian Party as an act of conscience, we do not welcome them if they intend, as members of our party, to continue voting and acting like Republicans or Democrats;

Therefore be it resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby censures Assemblyman Moore for his recent votes in support of tax increases, requests that he return the $10,000 campaign contribution which the LNC this season voted to send him, and admonishes him to henceforward be a better champion of the values held by members of the political party with which he has chosen to affiliate if he intends to remain a Libertarian.

-Alicia

_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org