[Lnc-votes] [Lnc-business] Link for candidate/campaign support proposal

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

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net 
Wed Jul 19 09:57:05 CDT 2017

---

Ken,

	You know, I think you may be right. After reading your comments here, I believe I may have been barking up the wrong tree. I hadn't considered the possibility of turning this function over to the state affiliate parties. But your observation that we can't run the party from this body is spot on. I also can't argue with the sentiment that "I'd rather see 50 states doing this task in parallel, where they're actually able to meet the candidate and likely do a better job of assessing the candidate".

	The details may still require a bit of finesse though. When I started thinking about it, an issue quickly became apparent – precisely how to transfer candidate/campaign support spending authority to the affiliates. 

	One straightforward way to do it would be to divide the funds that the LNC has been spending for this purpose among the state affiliates using a proportional formula based on membership numbers. But while relatively simple and easy, this formula would have a significant downside, namely that it could frequently result in less money going to a state affiliate with several attractive candidates or campaigns seeking support, than to another state affiliate with fewer Libertarian candidates or less attractive campaigns that cycle (e.g. my state of California, which has the most members, but is saddled with a "Top Two" law that has greatly reduced the number of statewide candidates).

	I do have a slightly more complex proposal [don't worry Sam, it's shorter than my previous proposal, lol!] that I think could address that problem in a satisfactory manner, but I'd like to get your input on it Ken, and that of others, as well as hear any other suggestions for how to empower the affiliate parties to fund candidates and campaigns.  For instance, perhaps 

	Toward this end, I've started a Google Doc* document where my latest proposal can be viewed, and people can suggest modifications to it or propose their own alternate language for a motion addressing the general topic of LNC funding of candidates and campaigns:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17CxIixeu1GoQKLcJKQ05gvU-4jh35lX-B9vHJCKlzIA/edit?usp=sharing

[You don't have to be on the LNC to comment – if you're reading this on the reflector list and would like to suggest some motion language, or have other feedback or ideas for an approach on this issue, please feel free to go to the link above and comment.]

	Although I've edited several Google Docs documents, I believe this is the first one I've created, so please let me know if you have any trouble viewing or editing it, or any other feedback.

Love & Liberty,

                                     ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                         RealReform at earthlink.net
                                 (415) 625-FREE

*I'd actually prefer to patronize a smaller competing provider than reinforce the dominance of Google, so if anyone knows of another online service offering features similar to Google Docs, do share!


On Jul 18, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Ken Moellman wrote:

> It's a comprehensive plan.  However, the enormity of it is exactly why I think we should focus on developing and enabling state parties and let them build up to the point of being able to properly support the candidates in their state.  I'd rather see 50 states doing this task in parallel, where they're actually able to meet the candidate and likely do a better job of assessing the candidate.
> 
> I've run several campaigns and I was a statewide candidate myself (first executive branch candidate for LPKY, ever).  I have asked for help in those various campaigns, but not received it.  In hind sight, I realize that it was probably wise.  Though my own statewide campaign was largely about spreading the party out statewide, it was not framed that way and therefore the "now" version of me would have voted against the request made by the "then" version of me.
> 
> If we're building state parties, I'm for it.  If we're running temporary campaigns, I'm generally going to be against it.  I see the LP as the "long game" and therefore I believe in funding infrastructure and foundational items over temporary campaigns.  Exceptions do exist. 
> 
> We can't run the party from this body.  What we can do is help the party grow, so that a more local party can run a real political ground game and get some people into elected office.
> 
> ken
> 

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