[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Contract with campaign?

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Has a contract been signed?

--

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Not yet.

-Nick

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

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

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you.  I was asked.

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Is there any update?

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

We still do not have a contract.

-Nick

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you Nick.  Is there any anticipated time frame or anything else other than "no we don't have one" that I can tell inquiring members?   Are there any planned updates to be given to LNC members, even if under privilege?

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I am assuming this remains the same? 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

Are we there yet? :)

 

---

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Cut it out children, or I am stopping the car right now!

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

No change at present.  Our attorney continues to reach out to the campaign to get it finalized, but that has not been successful yet.

In related news, he will be working on a memo with advice for state affiliates on the pros and cons of joining the joint fundraising committee.  The LNC has not joined that committee yet and it is not my intent to do so in advance of a contract with the campaign being completed.

-Nick

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you Nick. 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Mom, are we there yet?  I gotta pee.

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Is there any word?  A few members of my region have inquired.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Same here.  Texas is asking...

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Our attorney is still in contact with their attorney and we are told
that there is a revised version that we should get soon. It is not
proceeding as quickly as I prefer.

-Nick

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Thank you Nick... look forward to further updates.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Speaking of the contract.   Is there something in there that says the candidate should be telling people they are the LIBERTARIAN PARTY Presidential candidate at every opportunity they can.  Maybe also that 95% or more of their campaign literature and their media make it clear that they are the Libertarian Party candidate for President and not some independent?

I know a lot of people talk about branding.  If we provide something to you to with the expectation that one of the things you do is promote our brand that you think is worth 10 million dollars you should be doing that every chance you get.  If instead you often say, you are the third Party or that you are Independent, that is not promoting the brand that gave you a platform.

Throw in that in some places our candidate IS on the ballot as an independent because it's cheaper or just not possible to be on as a Libertarian and we have a bigger loss of value to the Party.

Hopefully this election frees up money in other places going forward and we put a greater emphasis on making sure WE promote not just our Presidential candidate but our brand in all 50 states.

Also, I hope that we do a better job of making sure the person designated a spokesman for us at least speaks of us OFTEN.

Daniel Hayes

LNC At Large Member

Sent from my iPhone

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

This entire ordeal is why the Bylaws Committee proposed a pre-convention contract signing requirement to be

nominated.  The delegates didn't see it our way and we will be stuck with the same problem again in 2020.

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

If something a little more specific and not left so open-ended were proposed by the Bylaws Committee it might have passed.  Speaking for my particular POV and those like me, we rallied against it because it could be used in the future to exclude candidates like Darryl Perry which unfortunately is a sentiment, and I for one, would never vote for such a thing.  I would love to see the next Bylaws Committee come up with something that removed that danger, and it would have my enthusiastic support and likely the support of those that I find myself in ideological alignment with.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

However, I echo Daniel's sentiments.  I die a little inside every time I see our name and brand omitted.  This is a reciprocal relationship, and our ballot access and the foundation built by our activists is at least worth naming our name.  We are not the last girl left standing at the dance, and we need to stop acting like we are.  

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this.  I am less insistent than many on seeing our name on many things.  I tend to think that part of the reciprocal relationship is returning our ballot access not only in the same shape it was granted, but in better shape, and I think the campaign will do that.  So when I get upset about this topic, please understand that it is not coming from a place of "Libertarian Party on everything" but, instead, that even someone as moderate as myself on this has seen reason to get upset.  

There is a world of difference between omitting our name and going out of your way to disclaim the name, though.  As Caryn says, this party, over 40 years, built the ballot access foundation.  Therefore, it is very disconcerting to me to see an ad (which I otherwise like) make the claim of being "an independent candidate on all ballots."  An independent would have a much, much harder time getting on all 50 ballots and DC than our candidate, for the simple reason that they would start with 0, not 31.  Additionally, an independent would be taking care of all states themselves.  I am highly, highly appreciative of the fact that the campaign pledged a significant sum to ballot access, and has ballot access staff  (and volunteers) assisting throughout the country.  The party also contributed substantially and has staff (and volunteers) throughout the country working.  An independent, of course, wouldn't have that.  As you know, I sometimes have my doubts as to what the party should be doing in this regard, but the facts are what they are.

I am supportive of the campaign doing what it takes to succeed.  I recognize that successful political materials often do not include the party name - and, Rs and Ds also enjoy significant ballot access secured by virtue of the party, not the campaign.  I'm fine with that.  I'm not fine with making a talking point of things attained, in very large measure, by the party, while also calling yourself an independent.  

Joshua A. Katz

Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I am a "use our name everywhere" person (we are not R and D and the dynamics are not the same on many levels) but I have a huge point of agreement with Joshua- the positioning of "independent" is what really sticks in the craw and has to many members.  I think if a candidate is going to run a stealth Libertarian campaign, the delegates need that information.  It is a dagger through my Libertarian heart.

We need to find a way to avoid this in the future.  A way that a future LNC cannot exploit to exclude minority candidates or ones that fit a future LNC's "respectability politics" metre.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

I think a good middle ground would be to have an optional pre-convention contract for candidates to sign. A mandatory pre-convention contract might include, either deliberately or accidentally, things that a principled libertarian candidate would not want to sign, and I believe that is one reason delegates rejected the idea. But with an optional contract – perhaps with a mandatory requirement that those choosing not to sign provide their reason(s) – delegates could see before voting who had signed and who had not, and evaluate for themselves the reason(s given by any candidate unwilling to do so.

Love & Liberty,

                                  ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Optional would be much more likely to pass muster with groups such as the Radical Caucus which opposed the last language, and I can only assume that other groups and individuals did so for similar reasons (though their exclusionary concerns might differ).  Having a required one puts way too much control in the hands of the LNC - which might be for wonderful folks such as us, but power is not given based on transitory officials.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Unfortunately, I am forced to agree with many of the concerns, and think this is a good solution. An optional contract makes a lot of sense, as well as a frank and open discussion before and during the convention. This "independent" foolery is not only a bad strategy for the presidential campaign, it is also removing major down ticket gains.

Part of the top of the ticket's job is to persuade voters that Libertarian solutions are the right ones, and that the Libertarian party candidates will bring those solutions. It's not enough to convince voters that the candidates are experienced and mature. Frankly, no one cares.

People vote for actions. People are voting for Trump because he has indicated the action of kicking out immigrants. They vote for Hillary because she has indicated the action of increasing welfare and robbing the rich. 

But if you ask most non-Libertarians what actions presidential Johnson will offer, it's far less than clear. They sometimes know he's a governor and a nice guy. If that's all the campaign accomplishes by November, we will not see the results we want.

Trump talks about kicking out immigrants every day all day. Gary talks about eliminating some part of government around 10% of the time. That's a good start, but not enough.

We've all heard Gary declare himself a proud Libertarian, and clearly talk about how he will cut government. Not just what he has done, but what he will do. We need the rest of America to know that, and also to know that all other Libertarian candidates are working for the same goals.

In Liberty,

Arvin Vohra

Vice Chair

Libertarian National Committee

Arvin Vohra

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

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

^^Standing Ovation.^^

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Attached below are some emails I exchanged with Nick back in February on the subject of a Presidential Campaign Contract.  Unfortunately nothing got done back then.  What I would have liked to have happened is that the LNC should have a adopted a very reasonable draft contract, which did not try to extract every last ounce of advantage from our eventual Presidential candidate.  We would have then pre-signed the contract and urged all the Presidential candidates to do likewise prior to the convention.  If they refused, delegates could have taken that into account.  If they objected to some provisions and insisted on certain changes, we could have considered those specific objections and if necessary revised the contract.

Instead we have the current situation: Still no signed contract three months after the convention.  50-state ballot access is almost complete, and we've lost most of our leverage.  The Johnson/Weld campaign is accumulating a hundred thousand donors.  Will we have access to all that information?  What do we do if they refuse to provide it to us?

Dan Wiener

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Wiener <wie...@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Lnc-business] Proposed Presidential Campaign Contract
To: "lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org" <lnc-bu...@hq.lp.org>
Cc: Oliver Hall <olive...@gmail.com>

The Libertarian Party's database of membership and contact information is one of our "crown jewels".  It is highly proprietary data which would cause us enormous damage if it were to somehow leak into public view or hostile hands.  That's why we have to insist on the use of a bonded third-party mail house, thus shielding it even from our Presidential candidate, to avoid the risk that some campaign staffer or outside contractor might accidentally or intentionally compromise its security.

But the same logic applies in reverse.  A prominent person seeking our Presidential nomination may start with his own large following, accumulated over many years via business or political or celebrity status.  That data constitutes his own "crown jewels", and its security is just as important to him as ours is to us.  Why should he entrust it to the LP?  If we want to market the LP to his pre-existing list, we should have to go through the same hoops (e.g., bonded third-party mailing house) that we demand when he wants to market to our pre-existing list.

Hey, if a candidate is willing to gift the LP his pre-existing list, that would be wonderful.  But it shouldn't be a contractual condition.

And yes, we bring ballot status to the table.  But the candidate brings his presumed political skills to the table, along with a willingness to campaign full time as our Presidential nominee.  That's the more proper comparison.

It boils down to this:  We need to propose a Presidential Agreement which most if not all of the Presidential candidates, along with objective observers, will consider reasonable and fair to both sides, not one which disproportionately skews towards the Libertarian Party.  That's the only way that we'll persuade the 2016 candidates to buy into it, and that's the only way that we'll be able to convince the convention delegates to add this requirement to the Bylaws for future elections.

Dan Wiener

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 10:40 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <ch...@lp.org> wrote:

Yes, a candidate comes to the table with a list that may have been
developed over some period before he/she announced for the LP
nomination. But the LP comes to the table with ballot access earned
over 45 years. We should get the whole list if the candidate gets our
whole list.

All inquiries about the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate
should be given to the LP for an opportunity to convert them to a LP
member, regardless of whether the inquirer asks specifically about the
LP or not.  This should not preclude the candidate from also
responding to the inquiry, or even for there being a day or two
between the candidate's response to the inquiry and the LP's response.

-Nick

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Daniel Wiener <wie...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

After reviewing the proposed Presidential Agreement which Nick sent out earlier tonight, I have several suggested edits: 

3(c)(ii):

Upon signing this Agreement, the Candidates and Campaign Committee shall promptly provide to the LNC their "campaign" lists, i.e., their most current lists of contributors, inquiries and volunteers and the mailing and e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of those persons, and their "media" lists, i.e., their most current lists of media contacts and the mailing and e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of those persons.  This requirement shall only apply to names on those lists which were obtained after the Candidates announced that they were seeking the LP nomination. The Candidates and Campaign Committee shall provide to the LNC promptly as and when they are received, and at least weekly, any additions or updates to those lists. The Candidates and Campaign Committee intend that these lists shall be added to and merged with the lists owned and maintained by the LNC, so that the LNC shall have the unrestricted ownership and use of the lists in the future in order to advance the interests of the LP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Candidates shall retain a limited license to use those lists following the Campaign for their own personal noncommercial use insofar as such use does not conflict with Libertarian Party objectives.

3(c)(5):

The Candidates and Campaign Committee shall direct all inquiries about the Libertarian Party from interested voters, media representatives and others, to telephone numbers, mailing and e-mail addresses and persons designated by the LNC.

My rationale is that I don't think it's reasonable to demand a Candidate's entire list of contacts and supporters, many of which were accumulated long before that Candidate sought the LP nomination. But once a Candidate has announced a run, all subsequent contact information should be fair game for the LP.

It's also unreasonable to limit the Candidate's use of such data to "personal non-commercial use". Candidates should be able to freely utilize all of the data which they themselves collected, unless there is a direct conflict with LP objectives (e.g., using that data to help another political party or other non-LP candidates).

Finally, Candidates and their Campaign Committees should be able to respond to inquiries about themselves without having to redirect those inquiries to the LP, unless the inquiry is specifically about the LP.

Dan Wiener
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <ch...@lp.org> wrote:
>>
>> As mentioned, the attached contract incorporates almost all of the
>> proposals suggested by Mr. Hall.
>>
>> -Nick

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Our ballot access is priceless and we just gave it up.  For some it is worth it.  It isn't to me unless we grow the Party.  This isn't the time to be swept up in emotion or sentimentalism about this historic election season.  Our duty is to this Party.  Not to any campaign except as it serves this Party.

I am glad we are thinking of this now for 2020.  IF there was some contract (and it should be weighted to us AFAIC, they are asking for our hand after all), and a candidate refused, I would hope that delegates would consider that a huge black mark. I certainly would. 

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

 

I think a basic contract would be wise.  Information sharing and that kind of stuff.  Seems like that would be a good place to start. We don't have to go crazy on it.  We shouldn't micromanage the campaign anyway. But when the campaign ends, if all the data ends up with Repubs instead of us, I'll be very disappointed.

 

 

 

---

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

 

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

There is more to a basic contract than data sharing.  The basic contract sent to the LNC prior to convention WAS basic with a few exceptions that would potentially be used to exclude dissident candidates like Perry which is why much of the Party base opposed and would continue to oppose. But I would EQUALLY oppose one that was ONLY data sharing.  The main basic points in the one shared earlier were data sharing, compliance with Platform or SoP (or differentiation when one differs), and using the Libertarian brand.  Those are the basic that MUST be in place.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

And for anyone who would get upset with the Platform requirement, I point to our Bylaws which only require full support of the delegate's decision as long as campaigns are conducted in accordance with the Platform and our charter in which we exists to give voice to and implement the SoP.  Without that, nothing else matters.  Data sharing isn't in our Bylaws, however important that is. Our UNIQUE LIBERTARIAN IDENTITY is.

-- 

In Liberty,

Caryn Ann Harlos

Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann. Har...@LP.org

Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado

Colorado State Coordinator, Libertarian Party Radical Caucus

[lnc-...@hq.lp.org]

Trying to "extract advantage" from our candidates, Dan? I hope no one here sees that as the objective. It is in the interests of Libertarian candidates that their donors join the Libertarian Party – more LP members means a stronger party, and a stronger party is able to do more to help Libertarian candidates. 

But if a candidate needs that reason to support the LP, something is wrong. Libertarian candidates should naturally want to support the Libertarian Party, unless the party itself has gone wrong. If there comes a point where the LP is no longer seeking a world free of government aggression, sooner rather than later, Libertarian candidates should speak out and make that clear, and in their roles as members of the party, fight to help get it back on track. 

More fundamentally, we don't want an us/them situation – we want our candidates to be part of the "us", with the principles and values that naturally entails. The 45 years of effort that Nick speaks of to earn ballot access has been part of a struggle for freedom, and the efforts of all those whose work has made it possible – those in the larger libertarian movement who have made the culture more fertile soil and the minds more prepared for the ideas we as a party are trying to advance, as well as those in the Libertarian Party, and certainly the candidates themselves – deserve nothing less than for us to make damn sure that each candidate who represents us believes in the libertarian ideas we've been fighting for. We are together for freedom, or we are together for nothing.

Like the members of the Libertarian National Committee being responsible and accountable to LP members, Libertarians being responsible and accountable to the political parties on whose ballots they are listed is a good thing. Because when some of those candidates become officeholders, we want them to be used to accountability and transparency and bottom-up governance. This will help inoculate them against the natural effect that being in public office has on most people, which is to make them more used to being in charge, i.e. having power. And power as we know corrupts. 

There will also of course be pressures from their statist colleagues to get with the statist program in various respects, via compromises and accommodations both large and small, pressures to pander to special interests to raise money for reelection, etc. Rather than joining ranks with the politicians addicted to power and beholden to special interests, we want our candidates to come to the dance already taken (with a nod to Caryn's analogy about the girl left waiting to dance). In contrast to the governing establishment culture of top-down power, we want Libertarian candidates who become officeholders to spread a culture of bottom-up accountability and transparency. To me this is not about trying to get something from our candidates, it is more like arming them for battle. 

In short, I believe we want with our candidates not a contract that skews toward one "side" or the other, but a contract that "skews" toward advancing freedom. A contract negotiation should be, and I hope is, approached by both candidates and party chairs with that objective in mind. If a party and its candidates are quibbling over mailing lists, it's a bad sign. If we are selecting good candidates, the Libertarian Party should want to share our database with our candidates, and unless the party has strayed from its founding principles, the candidates should want to share their political contacts with the party, since we're all family, all part of the same team. If we're not selecting good candidates or we have gone astray, then we should do something about that. 

Love & Liberty,

                                   ((( starchild )))

At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee

                                (415) 625-FREE

<Proposed Presidential Candidate Contract - with Special Counsel recommendations.pdf>

_______________________________________________