Agenda Item -- Define in Advance the Agreement between the Party and the Presidential Campaign
I'd like to add an item to the LNC meeting agenda on drafting in advance an agreement between the Party and the 2016 Presidential candidate. The Bylaws Committee is considering a proposed amendment which would require persons seeking the LP Presidential nomination to sign such an agreement ahead of time. This would avoid the problems and delays we've had in the past. But it means that the LNC needs to come up with a draft document within the next several months (preferably at least six months before the 2016 convention) so as to negotiate the terms with potential candidates and work out the kinks. Of course a Bylaws Amendment, if passed, would only officially take effect for 2020 and thereafter. But it is an inherently good idea, and should be at least unofficially implemented for 2016 by the LNC. This would also demonstrate to the convention delegates that it is both feasible and valuable. It's something which our new legal counsel should expect to take on as one of his early assignments. I'm forwarding copies of several past agreements which Dan Karlan has provided. Dan Wiener ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Karlan <dankarlan@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:23 AM Subject: RE: Bylaws Proposal -- Define in Advance the Agreement between the Party and the Presidential Campaign Attached are several documents relevant to the discussion of advance agreement with the nominee. Dan Karlan
As a bylaws amendment, this proposal is perennial and never seems to go anywhere. The delegates don't seem to approve of having their hands bound as to who they may nominate. As a strategic matter, a political party with likely 50-state ballot access ought to float an agreement it would like to see executed by any nominee and publicize which potential nominees are and are not willing to sign it. The delegates would be able to do with that information as they please. As a committee, we have more leverage in these negotiations than we've used in the past and I would like to use it this time around. How long would you like on the agenda? -Nick On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
I'd like to add an item to the LNC meeting agenda on drafting in advance an agreement between the Party and the 2016 Presidential candidate. The Bylaws Committee is considering a proposed amendment which would require persons seeking the LP Presidential nomination to sign such an agreement ahead of time. This would avoid the problems and delays we've had in the past. But it means that the LNC needs to come up with a draft document within the next several months (preferably at least six months before the 2016 convention) so as to negotiate the terms with potential candidates and work out the kinks.
Of course a Bylaws Amendment, if passed, would only officially take effect for 2020 and thereafter. But it is an inherently good idea, and should be at least unofficially implemented for 2016 by the LNC. This would also demonstrate to the convention delegates that it is both feasible and valuable. It's something which our new legal counsel should expect to take on as one of his early assignments.
I'm forwarding copies of several past agreements which Dan Karlan has provided.
Dan Wiener
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Karlan <dankarlan@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:23 AM Subject: RE: Bylaws Proposal -- Define in Advance the Agreement between the Party and the Presidential Campaign
Attached are several documents relevant to the discussion of advance agreement with the nominee.
Dan Karlan
_______________________________________________ Lnc-business mailing list Lnc-business@hq.lp.org http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
I'd suggest half an hour for this agenda item. That should give us enough time to briefly discuss what has gone wrong in the past, what essential provisions need to be dealt with in the 2016 agreement, and what the LNC is (and isn't) prepared to do in support of the 2016 Presidential candidate. Then we can set a target date for preparation of a draft agreement. The LNC can subsequently approve a draft agreement either by email ballot or via an electronic or in-person meeting. Dan Wiener On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair@lp.org> wrote:
As a bylaws amendment, this proposal is perennial and never seems to go anywhere. The delegates don't seem to approve of having their hands bound as to who they may nominate.
As a strategic matter, a political party with likely 50-state ballot access ought to float an agreement it would like to see executed by any nominee and publicize which potential nominees are and are not willing to sign it. The delegates would be able to do with that information as they please.
As a committee, we have more leverage in these negotiations than we've used in the past and I would like to use it this time around.
How long would you like on the agenda?
-Nick
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Daniel Wiener <wiener@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
I'd like to add an item to the LNC meeting agenda on drafting in advance an agreement between the Party and the 2016 Presidential candidate. The Bylaws Committee is considering a proposed amendment which would require persons seeking the LP Presidential nomination to sign such an agreement ahead of time. This would avoid the problems and delays we've had in the past. But it means that the LNC needs to come up with a draft document within the next several months (preferably at least six months before the 2016 convention) so as to negotiate the terms with potential candidates and work out the kinks.
Of course a Bylaws Amendment, if passed, would only officially take effect for 2020 and thereafter. But it is an inherently good idea, and should be at least unofficially implemented for 2016 by the LNC. This would also demonstrate to the convention delegates that it is both feasible and valuable. It's something which our new legal counsel should expect to take on as one of his early assignments.
I'm forwarding copies of several past agreements which Dan Karlan has provided.
Dan Wiener
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Karlan <dankarlan@earthlink.net> Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:23 AM Subject: RE: Bylaws Proposal -- Define in Advance the Agreement between the Party and the Presidential Campaign
Attached are several documents relevant to the discussion of advance agreement with the nominee.
Dan Karlan
_______________________________________________ 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 general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”* -- Richard Feynman (https://tinyurl.com/lozjjps)
participants (2)
-
Daniel Wiener -
Nicholas Sarwark