Mark Hinkle’s Candidate Statement for Libertarian National Committee’s Open At-Large Position

Mark Hinkle’s Political Resume in the Libertarian Party*

Chair of the Libertarian Party from May of 2010 to May of 2012.
• As Chair, I personally raised $148,38 in donations towards the David F. Nolan Headquarters building. That’s more than the rest of the LNC combined for all fund raising projects.
Total amount paid and pledged: $222,815.80.
• Appointed by current LNC Chair Geoff Neale to the Outreach Committee. Recently addressed Silicon Valley Chinese Americans as a stand-in for Judge Jim Gray.
Served 12 years on the LNC as a regional representative or alternate from California and recently as LP Chair.
• LP of California (LPC) Chair: elected 4 times for a total of 6 years.
Worked closely with LNC to increase LPC membership from 2,000 dues paying members up to over 7,000 LPC/LNC membership in California (1997-2001).
Hired full-time Executive Director (Juan Ros) and raised the money to do it
Opened full-time LPC HQ in Southern California (which recently moved to Sacramento) and raised the money to do it
Hired Editor for LPC monthly newsletter
Hired part-time fund raiser and sent out monthly fund-raising letter (all of which made money for the LP)
Opened a 2nd Executive Suite office in Sacramento for Executive Director to use when lobbying state legislature or meeting LP friendly groups, like the Gun Owners of California.
Increased monthly pledge amounts to LPC to over $6,000 per month.
• LPC Executive Committee member for over 25 years.
• County Chair, County Vice-Chair, and County Newsletter Chair.
• LPC Northern Vice-Chair.
• LPC Fund Raising Chair.
• LPC Newsletter Chair.
• Chair of the LPC Judicial Committee: 2008-2010.
• State Assembly candidate 5 times. Earned 10% of the vote in a 3-way race in 2008.
• State Senate Candidate in 2010 special election
• Made almost 1,000 phone calls to registered Libertarians urging a NO vote on Prop 14 (Top Two) using Liberty Manager in 2010.
• Twice winner of the Sons of Liberty Award for the most principled partisan race (State Assembly).
• Twice a candidate for the Gavilan Community College board of Trustees.
• LPC’s liaison to the CCRA (California Civil Rights Alliance), and recently named Chair of the CCRA a coalition of mainly Muslim groups concerned with Civil Rights violations by our government. Successfully passed an Anti-PATRIOT Act resolution through both houses of the California legislature.
• Campaign manager for the very first partisan race after the LPC achieved ballot status: Bill White for State Senate, 1980. He received 13% of the vote in a 3 way race.
• Authored many anti-Bond and and anti-parcel tax ballot arguments (12 were accepted for this election cycle), successfully defeating many tax increase measures and thus saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
• Board Member of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, which won it’s 2008 California Supreme Court case overturning an illegal tax increase by the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority. We forced the agency to give money back to the taxpayers. And I’m a chief plaintiff in the next case to overturn yet another illegal tax.
• Convention Chair for two LPC statewide conventions.
• LP guest speaker for more than 25 years in local high school Civics classes.
• Past LNC and LPC Platform committee member and LPC Bylaws committee member.
• Life member (both state & national) since 1974.
• Cast write-in vote for Libertarian Presidential/ V.P. candidates John Hospers & Tonie Nathan in 1972.

PROFESSIONALLY, I’m a small business owner in the San Francisco South Bay Area and have increased my sales each year. My business focuses on child safety and drowning prevention.
My main goal for getting back on the LNC is to finish the job of raising money for the David F. Nolan Memorial Headquarters. We must stop wasting money on leased office space and establish a permanent headquarters in the DC Metro Area. The property prices are ideal and the interest rates will never be this low again. Now is the time to strike.
Yours in liberty………………Mark Hinkle,
Retired LP Chair,
Board Member: Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association
Chair: California Civil Rights Alliance
Tel: 408-779-7922

 

*Because of the resignation of Wayne Allyn Root, there is now an opening for an At-Large Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. The candidates for the position have been asked to write a 2-page letter of why they would like to be on the LNC. They will be voted on at the next meeting, this November in Washington DC. IPR would like to feature the letters ahead of the meeting. This way, our readers can get to know about the choices and can take an opportunity to contact their Regional Reps and the Executive Committee of the candidate they’d like to see elected.

122 thoughts on “Mark Hinkle’s Candidate Statement for Libertarian National Committee’s Open At-Large Position

  1. Dan Reale

    I concur with Chuck… but purchasing a building should not and is not the #1 priorty of the LP at this time. In fact, it’s down the list by quite a bit.

    The major mistakes with this project were as follows:

    1) While Mark is correct that interest rates are low, that doesn’t change the fact that real estate is insanely over valued. I’d rather pay 6% on something reasonably valued than get gouged on something by 50-100% up front on the principal. Let the price fall. We of all people should know about this.

    2) Money was really tight on ballot access this year. And we already had a national headquarters.

    3) There were a ton of other things that money would have been far more effectively spent on. Saratoga is a good example. I would be just as happy if it was spent on getting newer or dormant affiliates a website and some infrastructure from scratch. The bottom line on this point is that purchasing a building remains part in parcel of the national LP’s prior approach assuming that it should be bigger than all affiliates combined. The approach is wrong regardless of the fact that I would dearly like the national LP to own instead of rent.

  2. paulie

    Sorry to step on Mark’s thread, hopefully he will be here to answer questions and concerns himself, but since I agree with him about this one:

    Money was really tight on ballot access this year. And we already had a national headquarters.

    3) There were a ton of other things that money would have been far more effectively spent on. Saratoga is a good example. I would be just as happy if it was spent on getting newer or dormant affiliates a website and some infrastructure from scratch. The bottom line on this point is that purchasing a building remains part in parcel of the national LP’s prior approach assuming that it should be bigger than all affiliates combined. The approach is wrong regardless of the fact that I would dearly like the national LP to own instead of rent.

    Many of the donations to this project would not be available to other LP projects. The money belongs to the donors until we give them a project that inspires them. Different donors are inspired by different projects. A building we own happens to be one that inspires some donors who would not be willing to give nearly as much, if anything, to other possible projects.

    This is why I hope that Mark will join me in supporting a move to more project based fundraising, not just on this, but on many other things (his support would mean more than mine, since he is more likely to win this election than I am).

    Saratoga (now Libertas) is being done as a private venture, as is a competing product from Stewart Flood.

    Ballot access continues to muddle along (see my thread for some of my thoughts on that).

    I hope to see more cooperation between levels of the party, as does Mark – see Mark’s goals from when he ran for chair, http://mark4chair.com/goals/proposed-goals-for-the-lnc-2010-2012/4213, all of which I share (too bad they never made it on the agenda):

    Ballot Access in all 50 states (to the extent our members are willing to fund it).

    Membership growth among at least 2 key demographics: 1). young adults (we need fresh blood; and 2). business professionals (we need rich blood).

    Create single-issue coalitions with any other liberty-oriented organizations. Power in numbers!

    An online Congressional lobbying effort, something akin to DownsizeDC.org.

    Candidate and affiliate support training akin to the LP.s nationwide .Success. seminars of the late 1990.s.

    Internal education. We need to remind our members of why we exist and what we stand for. Ideological drift will doom the LP to an early death. This must not happen!

    Creation of a Liberty Sales Team: pay Libertarians a finder.s fee to obtain LP memberships.

    Creation of a Libertarian Speakers Bureau to provide Libertarian experts to discuss issues of the day with the media.

    If those goals could be implemented, I think we would see affiliates grow, so it wouldn’t be a case of national wanting to be bigger than the affiliates, and wasting money on rent doesn’t help affiliates grow.

  3. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    @ 3: Why are some in the higher ranks of the LP so obsessed with having a place near DC?

    They’re what Thomas Knapp calls Cargo Cult Libertarians.

  4. Wes Wagner

    I notice a big hole here… where he neglects to show humility and that he learned from his mistakes.

  5. paulie

    Why are some in the higher ranks of the LP so obsessed with having a place near DC?

    Perhaps someone who has been around long enough could share their perspective on why we moved back to DC after moving to Houston in the early 1980s?

  6. Robert Capozzi

    8 p, the move TO Houston was IIRC simply for the convenience of the new ED, Honey Lanham, who lived in Houston. The move back I’m hazy on, but that was the period of severe intra-party strife.

  7. Mark HIlgenberg

    I was an activist in CA back when Mark was the State Chair, I always felt comfortable working with him.

    We don’t always see eye to eye on every issue but I feel that his reasoning is his own, not one coming from a faction or some agenda.

  8. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    TV @ 9: “that was the period of severe intra-party strife.”

    Worse than the past year?

  9. paulie

    I notice a big hole here… where he neglects to show humility and that he learned from his mistakes.

    I didn’t emphasize most of my negatives either, and I have plenty of them. Duensing didn’t mention his BTP nomination, McLendon did not say anything about what all he was doing between the early 1980s and 2006 (not that he was doing anything bad that I know of, he just doesn’t say).

    It’s a pitch – you sell your good points.

    Having said that, which mistakes in particular would you like him to address?

    the move TO Houston was IIRC simply for the convenience of the new ED, Honey Lanham, who lived in Houston. The move back I’m hazy on, but that was the period of severe intra-party strife.

    I wasn’t around, so I may be wrong, but I think I’ve read that the move to Houston was also symbolic, because they had done away with zoning.

    I’d be interested in hearing other specifics about why the decision was made to move back to DC.

    TV @ 9

    How do you get TV out of Robert Capozzi? LOL …. I can see RC or BC. But TV?

    “that was the period of severe intra-party strife.”

    Worse than the past year?

    Much worse. Half the party walked out in a huff, taking most of the money with them, when they lost in convention. We went from 50 states plus DC down to the 30s 4 years later in ballot access, and the vote totals shrank even more dramatically.

  10. Jeremy C. Young

    Paul, I wouldn’t assume that Hinkle is more likely to win this election than you are. Keep in mind that you are a duly elected member of the LNC (as alternate) right now, and that Mark Hinkle is not.

  11. NewFederalist

    “How do you get TV out of Robert Capozzi? LOL …. I can see RC or BC. But TV?”

    The letters are next to each other on the keyboard.

  12. paulie

    Paul, I wouldn’t assume that Hinkle is more likely to win this election than you are. Keep in mind that you are a duly elected member of the LNC (as alternate) right now, and that Mark Hinkle is not.

    I was elected by a vote of five state chairs (actually four, one was not on the call). Mark received well over a hundred delegate votes in convention.

    My sense is that I am not very popular on the LNC itself, and they are the ones that get to vote.

    Chuck Moulton is pretty good at laying out the odds, and he has Mark as being one of the front runners, but not me, as well.

    I’m willing to run because some people have asked me to, but I think Mark is a good candidate also.

  13. Jeremy C. Young

    I think Mark and Guy are good candidates, and I won’t be unhappy if either is selected. However, I’d vote for you because I think you would be the most effective LNC member. Your boots-on-the-ground experience with ballot access and youth recruitment would be invaluable, and your wealth of ideas about how to grow the party would provide an important boost to already-existing growth efforts.

  14. Wes Wagner

    Having Mark Hinkle on the LNC board while having to be in a position to throw him under a bus to protect the LNC Inc. from some of the damage of litigation might prove interesting.

  15. Robert Capozzi

    12 p: I wasn’t around, so I may be wrong, but I think I’ve read that the move to Houston was also symbolic, because they had done away with zoning.

    me: From memory and impressions (I was editor of the Crane Machine newsletter UPdate at the time), that always felt like an ex post rationalization. The most germane fact was that Lanham lived in Houston, and Alicia Clark faction wanted to get national away from DC and the Crane Machine. Lanham was their operative, so why not move it to her home town, which, oh, btw, had no zoning?

    It seems unlikely that the zoning issue was the primary driver, although I stipulate that I don’t read minds!

    More vaguely in my mind, Jim Turney was elected Chair after Clark, and he reversed what I considered a poor decision. He also happened to live in Richmond, VA, but I think he recognized that the LP’s flag should be planted in the nation’s capital. Seems kinda obvious and straightforward to me.

  16. zapper

    TV @ 9

    How do you get TV out of Robert Capozzi? LOL …. I can see RC or BC. But TV?

    Finger placement.

    Look at your keyboard …

    T is to the right of R and V is to the right of C.

  17. zapper

    As I have heard from Turney and others involved, the LP was dead in the water and broke when Turney became chair.

    The DC move had been a faction victory celebration and a major mistake when it happened. The actively protested (by me at the meeting) decision to move was made at the NatCom meeting immediately following the 83 NYC convention, without any due consideration – just a kneejerk impluse to moon the Crane machine.

    The Party began to shrink immediately and as a direct result of the move out of DC.

    Turney put everything the party had left into a trailer and hauled it back to DC himself behind his car. David Nolan may have started the LP in his living room, but Turney restarted it with his own time, sweat and expense from a trailer.

    A national political party needs a DC office to be credible in the eyes of supporters, donors, members and the media. We should remain in DC.

    As to Buying Our Own Building … the time is now. Real Estate has turned the corner, prices are due to begin rising and, if it hasn’t already begun, the DC market will be on the uptick ahead of much of the rest of the US. The savings in the future will be substantial and we should have purchased a DC location long ago.

  18. Thane Eichenauer

    @22
    “As to Buying Our Own Building … the time is now.” [and so on]

    Forgive me for saying this but your comment sounds like every mediocre real estate agent’s and huckster’s schtick. Real estate may have turned the corner [or not]. Prices are do to begin rising [or not].

    “if it hasn’t already begun, the DC market will be on the uptick ahead of much of the rest of the US. ”

    Zapper, has it or hasn’t it “already begun”? By this statement alone one should doubt the rest of your assertions. You don’t even claim to know if DC real estate prices are on an uptick [compared to other areas]. I would sue an investment adviser that gave advice such as you gave above [if I was financially harmed by it].

    If some some state secedes soon and other states get inspired by the fact to start giving the boot to the federal punks in their region then DC area real estate prices might be ready for a drop. Perhaps then the LP might get a good deal for a corner office suite at the Pentagon.

    “The savings in the future will be substantial and we should have purchased a DC location long ago.” Really?!?

    On a non-sarcastic and non-critical note, I have no problem per se with folks who dream of the LP owning DC area bricks from donating [tens or hundreds of] thousands of dollars to do so. The claim that it is any kind of slam dunk is just that, a claim. How cost effective a project it would be depends on human behavior. The history of the human species tells us that it often cannot be predicted.

  19. Chuck Moulton

    Paulie wrote (@16):

    Chuck Moulton is pretty good at laying out the odds, and he has Mark as being one of the front runners, but not me, as well.

    Yeah, those are the odds.

    I wasn’t making an endorsement though. I think there are a number of good candidates and this will probably work out pretty well.

    Hinkle would bring back some institutional memory and a lot of dedication to the building fundraising to the LNC.

    Blau seemed pretty good last LNC. I’m still behind on LNC discuss from the yahoo group after my trip to Africa last month, so I’m not sure how he’s doing this LNC. One big advantage of Blau getting the at-large seat is there are several good back bencher candidates who could fill his alternate seat. For example it would be great to get Chris Thrasher on the LNC and active as an alternate so he can learn the ropes. It would also be refreshing and interesting to see George Phillies get an alternate seat — I’ve been wanting him to seek a lower position for years rather than just shooting for chair practically every year. I think Phillies would have a much better chance at an officer position with some LNC experience on his resume.

    And of course I am a big fan of Paulie’s contributions to the discussion and would like to see him get a vote on the LNC. I’m just skeptical enough support is there this term.

    Several people have asked me to endorse them, but I don’t feel comfortable doing that because there are so many good candidates. None stands head and shoulders above the rest.

  20. ATBAFT

    As I recall, Turney found it impossible to operate out of Houston, Lanham was gone and Paul Jacob was exec director, a disturbed staffer had killed himself in the office bathroom, etc. The move to DC was to a shabby townhouse onPenna. Ave. SE. (I remember helping to paint the walls.) Unfortunately, the LP continued to spiral down, hitting a membership low of less than 7,000 in late 1988.

  21. Q2Q

    How come Carl Person’s announcement for the LNC Vacancy hasn’t been posted here. I know it was sent to Paulie and the LP Chair/Secretary.

  22. Zapper

    @23 Over the last few years I’ve invested in R/E with 100% occupancy and all units yielding a positive return on a cash basis. In addition, so far this year each unit is up over 20% in value. None of my units lost value during the Great Recession, so this increase is significant.

    The DC market generally is a leading market, but I don’t invest there so I can’t tell you how much prices are rising overall. However, articles I’ve read indicate some upward movement has begun, which seems reasonable given the current state of the economy.

    As to your fears of succession, I will take the bold position that this is not a likely cause of any decline. On the contrary, the Fed has been printing money madly since 2008 with the intent of reinflating the bubble economy. Over the years they have generally managed to inflate everything including R/E and there is no reason to expect that we will not find ourselves with massive inflation and R/E prices doubling over the next 5 years. With a fixed mortage and a fixed interest rate not only will the property valuation rise but the LP can gain more due to debt leverage.

  23. NewFederalist

    Why not rent with a long term lease and buy gold and silver on leverage instead? If you’re playing the inflation game I think it will be different this time than in the 70’s. Too much overhang and too many bank owned properties unlike the 70’s. Too many government programs to keep homebuilders building new properties as jobs programs rather than to meet market demand. That is unlike the 70’s as well. Just my $0.02 worth.

  24. paulie

    Hinkle would bring back some institutional memory and a lot of dedication to the building fundraising to the LNC.

    Blau seemed pretty good last LNC. I’m still behind on LNC discuss from the yahoo group after my trip to Africa last month, so I’m not sure how he’s doing this LNC. One big advantage of Blau getting the at-large seat is there are several good back bencher candidates who could fill his alternate seat. For example it would be great to get Chris Thrasher on the LNC and active as an alternate so he can learn the ropes. It would also be refreshing and interesting to see George Phillies get an alternate seat — I’ve been wanting him to seek a lower position for years rather than just shooting for chair practically every year. I think Phillies would have a much better chance at an officer position with some LNC experience on his resume.

    And of course I am a big fan of Paulie’s contributions to the discussion and would like to see him get a vote on the LNC. I’m just skeptical enough support is there this term.

    Pretty much my assessment as well.

    Me running is more of a trial balloon and response to the people that asked me to run.

    I’d be happy with Mark back on the LNC, or for that matter with the other candidates that I think have any serious chance of winning.

    There are some candidates or rumored candidates that I don’t think would be an improvement, but I don’t think they have any chance of winning.

    The worst that could happen would be someone whose votes would be likely to be much like Wayne’s would likely have been, and we have a significant chance of getting someone better from my section of the bench.

  25. paulie

    How come Carl Person’s announcement for the LNC Vacancy hasn’t been posted here. I know it was sent to Paulie and the LP Chair/Secretary.

    What address was it sent to? I haven’t received it.

    If you sent it to contact.ipr that does not work again.

    The LP secretary does not necessarily forward the applications she gets.

    As far as I know paulie.frankel@LP.org should forward to my usual email address.

    If you are sending to travellingcircus make sure it’s with two Ls in travelling.

  26. From Der Sidelines

    Of course, missing from Hinkle’s resume was his utter failure as Chair, his colossal mistake in allowing a serial felon pedophile be reinstated to the LP, in direct violation of his state’s Bylaws, and the fact that he’s one of Starr’s cronies whether he’ll admit it or not.

  27. Q2Q

    Support Carl Person for the LNC Vacancy. He doesn’t offend and he offers unique ideas. Person 2012!!!!!!

  28. George Phillies

    I have had several inquiries about running for the position. A number of these came from people who urged me to run for Treasurer this time. Some of those same people then recruited people to run for Treasurer against me. Curiously, I did not find their rationales convincing.

    I remain grateful to the people who actually supported my campaign this year, though in the end it did not appear to be promising.

  29. George Phillies

    @31 I would hit on the head a slightly different set of nails, but agree that Hinkle is inappropriate, and will send a clear message to the membership about whether they actually changed the LNC or not. Perhaps the LNC can find a way to elect Aaron Starr next, in case the membership did not get the word the first time.

  30. Election Process Subversion

    George Phillies writes:

    Ruth Bennett, Michael Cloud, Tim Hagan and Vicki Kirkland are giving the LNC a motion to replace the at-meeting election with a mail ballot that would appear to favor Mark Hinkle.

    I move that we fill the At-large vacancy as follows:

    Self-nominations are currently open. An additional announcement will be sent to the State Chairs list. Nominations are closed as of OCT 5, 2012.

    Each nominee is encouraged to submit a one page “application” to the Chair and the Secretary to include:
    Name
    Address
    Telephone number/s
    Email address/es
    Year joined the National LP and member number
    Any Party offices – national or state – ever held
    Any candidacies for public office
    Any potential conflicts of interest
    An acknowledgment that all travel expenses are the responsibility of the nominee

    All applications must be received by the Secretary and the Chair by OCT 5, 2012

    Additional resumes or CVs may be included. The Secretary shall distribute nominee information as received. The Secretary will make available an instant run-off voting procedure no later than OCT 6, 2012 Balloting will end on OCT 16, 2012.

    As always, Regional Representatives will coordinate voting with their Alternates.

    Motion made by Ruth E. Bennett
    Co-sponsored by Michael Cloud, Tim Hagan and Vicki Kirkland

  31. Mark Hinkle

    From Der Sidelines // Sep 21, 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Of course, missing from Hinkle’s resume was his utter failure as Chair, his colossal mistake in allowing a serial felon pedophile be reinstated to the LP, in direct violation of his state’s Bylaws, and the fact that he’s one of Starr’s cronies whether he’ll admit it or not.
    ——————–
    Your ignorance of the situation is mind blowing.
    The LPC tried to kick a member out of the LPC when I was Chair of the LPC Judicial Committee. A committee of 5: all of which voted to overturn the decision of the LPC Executive Committee. It was not my decision alone, but I do stand by the decision. The LPC failed to prove their case. And a 5-0 ruling should make it clear that they didn’t do their job.

    Kicking someone out of the LP shouldn’t be done without a really good cause and the LPC didn’t provide a really good cause.

    And your comment about me being one of Aaron Starr’s cronies is a joke. You really are clueless. And everyone who knows of the disputes between Aaron and myself knows that.

    BTW, is Der Sidelines your real name?

    If not, why not?

    Don’t you have the courage to stand behind your own words?

    If you want to be taken seriously, sign your own name and get a clue as to what’s really going on.

    Yours in liberty……………..Mark Hinkle,
    Retired LP Chair

  32. Mark Hinkle

    @31 In the last cycle, we had a real radical on the LNC — Rachel Hawkridge. She was hounded off the committee, and Hinkle was one of the hounds.
    —————————
    Rachel Hawkridge resigned. No one hounded her off of the LNC except Rachel.

    George, repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t change it into the truth.

    Yours in liberty…………..Mark Hinkle,
    Retired LP Chair

  33. LibertarianGirl

    I agree Der, thinking Hinkle is bosom buddies with Starr is hilarious…it proves what Ive said all along about Mark , that he is beholden to no faction as witnessed by each one claiming hes with the other one….evidence of logical decision making and not cult of personality leading them

  34. LibertarianGirl

    George I respect the shit out of your watchdog ways but ima take a ig issue with this…you may know the others but you dont know Tim. he would never do anything like that. Never. He is quite probably the best man ive ever know. He didnt vote for Hinkle , not once ( no offense Mark or Tim) and Ive known him 12 years , Ive tried many times to influence him and were good friends. He has never wavered from doing whats right. He is beyond reproach. you dont have to believe me, I just want to make it known to anyone listening that your wrong , plain and simple.

    as for Rachel , whom I adore, was there anything she did that cotributed to her LNC debacle or was she entirely w/o blame?

    BTW I love ya George:)

  35. Not an Official Spokesperson

    The POTUS candidate statement censorship of 2012 was under Hinkle’s tenure. He didn’t try to make a link to their statements as chair. His fault or not, he should be help accountable.

  36. Mark Hinkle

    Oranje Mike // Sep 21, 2012 at 7:20 am

    Why are some in the higher ranks of the LP so obsessed with having a place near DC?
    ——————
    No one on the LNC is “obsessed” with having a place near DC. But, we do need an office and it needs to exist somewhere.

    And our employees live in the DC Metro Area.

    So, unless you want to fire our entire staff and move the HQ to another region, wouldn’t it be better, i.e. cheaper, to own a building rather than lease or rent?

    When you lease, you’re simply buying a building for someone else and you’re paying all of the costs of being there without any of the benefits of retained equity in the property.

    We can continue to lease about 3,000 square feet of office space @ $12K per month or we can buy a building with a monthly mortgage payment for about HALF of that.

    And we received donation from over 500 individuals to support this project.

    It makes economic sense and it’s also the practical thing to do regarding our LP HQ staffer as well.

    Win-win…………….Mark Hinkle,
    Retired LP Chair

  37. Mark Hinkle

    Not an Official Spokesperson // Sep 22, 2012 at 8:42 pm

    The POTUS candidate statement censorship of 2012 was under Hinkle’s tenure. He didn’t try to make a link to their statements as chair. His fault or not, he should be help accountable.
    ————————
    Another nameless person accusing me of something that I didn’t do. In fact, I had our staff put statements on our website, but was overridden by the LNC and was forced to remove them.

    I even had a poll put up on the LP’s web page to ask our membership what they thought while the email ballot was taking place. 93% of them, in one fashion or another, said to keep the links to the presidential candidate’s web pages up on the LP’s main web page.

    Here’s how the LNC voted:

    Voting to REMOVE Libertarian Presidential Candidates’ Names and Contact Information from the National LP Website:

    Mark Rutherford
    Wayne Allyn Root
    Alicia Mattson
    Rebecca Sink-Burris
    Kevin Knedler
    Scott Lieberman
    Randy Eshelman
    Andy Wolf
    Norman Olsen
    Audrey Capozzi
    Dianna Visek

    Voting to KEEP Libertarian Presidential Candidates’ Names and Contact Information at the National LP Website:

    Mark Hinkle
    Mary Ruwart
    Jim Lark
    William Redpath
    Vicki Kirkland
    Daniel Wiener

    Try and get your facts straight. You’re dead wrong.

    Yours in liberty……………Mark Hinkle,
    Retired LP Chair

  38. George Phillies

    On what we could save by moving the HQ out of the Belly of the Beast, we could readily afford to cover our staff’s moving costs. And they would discover huge pay increases, namely housing etc costs plummet away from the City of the Damned.

    Readers will also note that the last two Executive Directors both moved from far far away to take their jobs, so having to move to take a job is not unknown. Recall the secret name of IBM “I’ve Been Moved”.

    “Convenience of the Staff” has to be the second-stupidest reason known to man not to move, second to the current National Chair’s claim that the alternative worth mentioning to the Watergate palace is a pair of factory built housing units in the Arkansas backwoods.

  39. Matt Cholko

    I think Mr. Hinkle deserves some serious credit for his work on the building fund. Whether you agree with the idea of purchasing a building or not, you should at least appreciate that the guy put in the hard work of raising money to fund a project he believes in. Lots of people have ideas, some good, some not so good. But far fewer put in the work to line up the funding for implementation of their idea.
    Mark raised a lot of money/pledges for the building purchase. It wasn’t enough to convince the LNC to proceed with the project at that time, but it was a damn lot of money. Of course, as Chairman, raising money is part of the job, and Hinkle doesn’t deserve 100 gold stars just for doing his job. But, he does deserve credit for his work.

    Another thing to note, that also does not deserve a gold star- Hinkle seemed to stay largely out of the craziness during the Chairman election at this year’s convention, when he could easily have made a stink and cheated his way into another election after losing the first time. As I recall, one of his opponents even demonstrated how to do it 😉

    Disclaimer- I did not vote for Hinkle for Chairman this year, and my preference (based upon admittedly little knowledge of all the candidates) to fill the LNC vacancy is Paulie.

    I felt like we needed change at the top. We got it, and I am glad we did. However, I think Hinkle in an at-large seat would be just fine.

  40. Dan Reale

    Having discussed the building fund and examined the proposal with Mark, I have the following statements to make on it:

    1) Overall, it’s a good idea to buy instead of rent. There will be [tremendous long term] savings.

    2) We should continue this idea as a project specific effort with donations earmarked only for that purpose. I think a similar effort should be undertaken with Saratoga.

    3) The building, as Mark agrees, DOES NOT necessarily need to be in DC. I agree. But even if we purchased a building in DC, it would save a tremendous amount of money.

    4) Action is required to execute a sale on or before March/April 2013.

    I am simply weighing in on the building project thus far.

  41. paulie

    1. Agreed on long term savings if we buy rather than rent.

    2. Saratoga (now Libertas) is now a private company and there is also a competing product from Stewart Flood (Liberty Manager, unless it has also been renamed). They are no longer seeking funding in this same sense, but will be pursuing vendor contracts with state parties and with the national LP.

    3. In general, we need more project based fundraising. It simply works. Every successful political organization I have ever seen uses it extensively.

    4. Zapper gave pretty good reasons for it to be in DC area above. Members, media, donors take us less seriously when we are not in the DC area. When we moved to Houston the party declined and we had to move back to DC not long after that. It’s true that real estate and living costs are lower outside the DC area, but past experience also shows we would be raising less money.

  42. From Der Sidelines

    Hinkle @41: Quit lying. I know exactly what happened and I know it from ALL the players, from moment one of the entire situation, long before YOU had anything to do with it. You ARE A LIAR!

    The fact is this: YOUR JudCom was tasked to do exactly one thing, which was determine if, under the Bylaws, the LPCA ExCom followed the Bylaws when doing that vote for expulsion. The XCom did, to the letter.

    Your JudCom did not read the XCom briefs, and in fact made the ExCom retry the whole case before you, which was not only out of its purview, but entirely improper. Burden of proof is on the appellant, not the ExCom, stupid! Futhermore, your JudCom failed to apply those Bylaws OR RRONR to the case at hand. Had you done so, you would have seen that RRONR allows for cause to be activity detrimental to the organization. Not to mention fraud by lying.

    In doing so, you fucked up, you placed a cancer on the LPCA that continues to this day, and you refuse to admit it.

    And you think you ought to be placed back on the LNC when you were clearly voted out? How arrogant is that?

    Frankly, I use a different name ion here because I feel like it. If all you can do is lie and criticize because of a different name, then you have zero.

    Face it Hinkle, your time is past, your record stinks. Maybe you ought to to invest your time in trying to help save your state correctly instead of continuing to fuck up the LNC.

  43. From Der Sidelines

    @42: Quit lying again. The emails from Hawkridge and that situation is well-documented, and you’re FOS. She was hounded off the LNC because she was blackballed on the Convention Committee by various people and compounded by your lies.

    I know far more than you realize, Hinkle. It comes from a position of prominence and knowing the right people.

  44. From Der Sidelines

    BTW, the whole building idea was suggested to Hinkle by someone who knew perfectly well that it was a windmill to tilt at and Hinkle in his naivete fell for it. do you want someone that easily manipulated on the LNC?

    This is the 21st century, people. If the national LP cannot run itself on laptops, cell phones, and a storage shed for what little physical stuff it actually needs, then its operational paradigm is fucked up. The whole exercise in the building fund simply proved the point, but it was apparently lost on the old guard.

  45. Not an Official Spokesperson

    Hitler’s soldiers; “Just following orders”.

    What we’re seeing is more finger pointing, plain and simple. Fact is, he didn’t get the job done.

  46. zapper

    @58 I especially endorse Paulie’s continued promotion of project based fundraising. Four projects I could support, off the top of my head:

    1) Relaunch the building fundraising – with a definite plan to buy by spring 2013. If I donate I want a building purchased, not my money back.

    2) A monthly 18 month or 20 month or whatever pledge plan to add 20,000 or so registrations to keep ballot status in CA. The CA LP should promise in turn to keep a permanent project going for recruitment and adding registrations. This should include building a stand-alone LP org in each CA county as part of the project. It should be handled with zero fundraising commissions. How about a gang of 32 donors for $250 per month for 20 months for example. Someone like Paulie would have to get a handle on the details for exact numbers of months, registrations, the time table, a target donor amount and target number of donors.

    3) Some kind of “never again” program to go in long-term, overkill for ballot access in OK and keep it. Whatever it takes, we will get ballot access and we will keep it in OK.

    4) An ong0ing targeted advertising plan on major network broadcast TV- Yes, the Zapper plan – to build a beachhead in the smallest states and work our way up. Ideally we begin advertising in 2013, follow-up with party building and work our way forward. Start with 3 small states: still: AK, WY, ME and add more as funding allows.

  47. George Phillies

    @61 In order to be in the safe harbor for receiving and caging money, we actually do need a back office with a minimum of four people in the same physical location.

  48. paulie

    Hitler’s soldiers; “Just following orders”.

    What we’re seeing is more finger pointing, plain and simple. Fact is, he didn’t get the job done.

    The LNC chair voted NO on removing candidates from the website. He lost that vote. It’s not his role as chair to act as dictator of the party and act against the vote of the committee (as a parliament fan, you should already know this).

    Any chair who acted contrary to a vote of the whole LNC would be justifiably removed for cause, and ED that did so would be fired for cause.

    The chair is not the dictator, just a committee member and facilitator of the deliberations.

    The executive director is not the dictator, just an employee.

    Our side lost the vote; it’s not “following orders” to follow the commitments undertaken by joining an organization that votes on a variety of policies.

    Maybe that’s not how it works in the “US Parliament” fantasy politics league, but we don’t do things your way in the LP.

    (In case anyone is wondering, I am not using any information available only to IPR editors to identify the “spokesperson”).

  49. paulie

    1) Relaunch the building fundraising – with a definite plan to buy by spring 2013. If I donate I want a building purchased, not my money back.

    2) A monthly 18 month or 20 month or whatever pledge plan to add 20,000 or so registrations to keep ballot status in CA. The CA LP should promise in turn to keep a permanent project going for recruitment and adding registrations. This should include building a stand-alone LP org in each CA county as part of the project. It should be handled with zero fundraising commissions. How about a gang of 32 donors for $250 per month for 20 months for example. Someone like Paulie would have to get a handle on the details for exact numbers of months, registrations, the time table, a target donor amount and target number of donors.

    3) Some kind of “never again” program to go in long-term, overkill for ballot access in OK and keep it. Whatever it takes, we will get ballot access and we will keep it in OK.

    4) An ong0ing targeted advertising plan on major network broadcast TV- Yes, the Zapper plan – to build a beachhead in the smallest states and work our way up. Ideally we begin advertising in 2013, follow-up with party building and work our way forward. Start with 3 small states: still: AK, WY, ME and add more as funding allows.

    All good ideas. I hope Mark and others running agree.

  50. Andy

    Zapper said: “It should be handled with zero fundraising commissions.”

    If enough funds could be raised to actually fund the project, and to have enough funds to do it right, without paying commissions to any fundraisers that would be nice, but I don’t know if this is realistic. I would say that a more realistic goal would be to try to raise as much money as possible for the project without paying any fundraising commissions, but then to supplement any shortfalls with commission fundraising.

  51. paulie

    That sounds reasonable.

    BTW I’m starting to get jealous here. Why is Mark’s thread at almost 70 comments and mine is stuck in the low 20s? 🙂

  52. zapper

    @68 Interesting. But much of the commentary about Hinkle shows continuing animosity – it’s not yet time for Hinkle to be returned to the LNC.

    OTOH … another significant portion of the commentary here is about positive ideas that are a direct result of Paulie’s – (hint, hint NatCom members) – positive attitude and ideas toward building a successful LP.

  53. Seebeck

    Mark,

    I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong on the LPC Judicial Committee stuff. I was there, remember?

    I submitted a brief to the Judicial Committee explaining ample cause for removal–simple fraud because the appellant lied to no less than 8 people and therefore violated the NAP. You admitted after the verdict that you did not read it.

    I was there during the hearing, I even testified, and all I heard was the appellant trying to shift the case from himself to the motivations of the Executive Committee, trying to paint the whole thing as a personal witch hunt, when the appellant lied to the Executive Committee and publicly damaged the LPC’s reputation, both of which are “for cause” items–not to mention the explicit Bylaw violation for threatening to involve the government with a lawsuit (see also a prior case involving that with a former Southern Vice-Chair before my time on the Executive Committee). The Judicial Committee did not do their job correctly. A majority of state convention delegates later agreed, even though it was not enough to overturn the improper decision.

    On those points From Der Sidelines, whomever that may be, and I think I know who it is, they are correct, but they may not even know as much as they think they know.

    You even admit here ” The LPC failed to prove their case”. That was not the job of the Executive Committee. The burden of proof was on the appellant, not the Executive Committee as respondent, and you blew it, big time. Furthermore, the Judicial Committee’s role was ONLY to determine if the vote was in accordance with the Bylaws. It was. The exception in the Bylaws about mandated duties does not extend to allowing changing the rules for a membership termination appeal–else the Bylaws self-conflict and that is not the case, and Robert’s Rules still applies in those silent procedural areas in any case. The Judcial Committee did not apply them properly.

    As the resident Bylaws expert at the time, since I was the one who rewrote them, I know a little more about the sequencing and connections within them than you might think.

    I also know that before making that vote, several of us, myself included, scoured both Robert’s Rules and the Bylaws to do it by the book. We did that homework and we triple-checked everything over the course of weeks, while the Judicial Committee took less than two hours. That doesn’t strike me as very deliberative, whether it was or not–that’s why the time period of two days is in there, to at least present the appearance of deliberation.

    If anything, I should not have remained silent at that Executive Session. I should have spoken up but I did not. That lies on me. But the rest lies on you, Mark.

    You can get annoyed all you want, Mark, but the facts are the facts, and you blew it. You got it wrong, and almost destroyed the LPC in the process, then you went on to national chair and did a poor job there and got voted out.

    Your record does not warrant reappointment, and your failures should not be rewarded. It’s really that simple.

    Besides, here’s the ultimate point, regardless of all of this:

    [b]You were voted out by the membership. Why should the LNC override that vote, undermine their own credibility, and put you back in?[/b]

  54. Mark Axinn

    I write to endorse Mark Hinkle for the LNC vacancy. Of course, we are not the ones voting, so I do not know how much, if any, influence this post can possibly have.

    We are blessed this year with many good candidates, and only have one position to fill. I am particularly supportive of my fellow state chair, Dave Blau of Massachusetts, both because he has fine judgment and because he spends most of time working for the LP instead of criticizing those who do the actual work. But last I looked, Dave is already on the LNC as 5N alternate.

    I must also say a word in favor of two New Yorkers who have shown interest: Gigi Bowman and Carl Person. I am certain that I know both of them better than everyone else on this list, and because they are both workers and not just talkers, I am delighted to have them as part of my team.

    I also like everything I see Paulie do, especially this website.

    But none of them has the experience that Mark does. As the immediate past LP Chair, he should have been reappointed to the LNC automatically in my opinion. His knowledge of the prior LNC is a sine qua non for this new one to be effective.

    Moreover, as a state chair in one of the hardest ballot access states in the country, I cannot thank Mark enough for all the support he has shown for ballot access and for New York in the past. His dedication to getting candidates on the ballot is only surpassed by that of Bill Redpath, which is clearly limitless!

    Whether to buy a building or why Rachel resigned (I thought it was her health) are so unimportant in making this decision. The onlyquestion should be who is best to help the LNC grow our party to help promote freedom. There is one person who stands above the rest (and they are all terrific choices!) on that issue:

    Mark Hinkle for LNC.

  55. George Phillies

    @70 The new proposed voting procedure appears to violate the Bylaws. Perhaps we should start warming up for another appeal to the Judicial Committee? Please contact me off-line or phone.

  56. Seebeck

    George, I’m out of that game for a while. My apologies. Have to have family and career take focus, else I’d be much more active than the inaction I’m at now. 🙁

    Besides, since when does the national committee follow the JudCom (ask Oregon) or even their own rules?

    I’m not totally sure a nomination qualifies as a substantive vote in terms of types of motions, but I also don’t have Roberts’ Rules around anymore either. (I left my copy with either Jason Gonella or Beau Cain, and I forget which.) In the spirit of the matter I think it would and should, but if the LNC is going to exercise continued stupidity and either not make the nominations and vote public and/or put back a person on the LNC that is either not qualified or has been rejected by the membership, then that’s their mistake.

    Frankly, even though I disagree with Paulie on a personal side, I hope he gets the nod because he brings a fresh voice to the LNC and he provides a good street perspective on ballot access they need to hear.

  57. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    I’m not in a position to make a recommendation for chair, since I’ve posted these articles (and I’m glad I have that excuse, because there a few candidates that I’d really like to see on the LNC and would have a tough time making a choice). I do think, however, that the fact that Mark wasn’t reelected as Chair is a separate issue than Mark being an At-Large rep. I believe that, with his many years experience with the LP, he could contribute greatly as an At-Large rep.

  58. Wes Wagner

    JP @74

    You have to be a fairly divisive figure to lose an election on the floor for an at-large position while you are also the outgoing chair.

    The LNC should expect that a reappointment of Hinkle would cause revenue and membership loss and a extremely contentious 2014 convention.

  59. paulie

    Although I’m also a candidate in this race, and am still willing to serve if the LNC surprises me and votes me in, I think Mark Hinkle is also a good candidate (as for that matter are several others who are running).

    If the LNC votes to seat Mr. Hinkle I look forward to working with him on the committee. The same goes for most of the other candidates in the race. I’m not as thrilled with the also-ran presidential candidates that are seeking the position, but I don’t think they have much support on the LNC.

    Mark Hinkle has done a lot of good things for many years in service to the LP. He supports many of the same agenda items as I do for LNC such as his goals I listed above from his race for Chair (as I’ve told him, I wish he had at least put them on the agenda to get LNC members on record even if they voted them down or to take them off the agenda), as well as project fundraising.

    It’s true that he did not win re-election as Chair or At Large. However, he had the most votes for At Large of people who are not now on the LNC in some capacity but are still LP members and interested in serving.

    I’m not interested in a negative campaign for this position. I’ll be happy to serve with anyone I think the LNC is at all likely to choose in this election of the people who are announced at this time.

    It’s true that not everything we have tried has worked out well, but I think too many LP members (and non-members who feel some attachment to the party) focus way too much energy on attacking each other for these failures and for differences in strategy and fine points of ideology. We should be more tolerant and forgiving of each other.

    As for the voting method, I do have some concerns. I’ve expressed them and am weighing whether, as a candidate in this race and a bylaws non-expert, I am the right person to bring the concerns several people have expressed about its bylaws-compliance to the rest of the LNC or not.

  60. paulie

    We have now received our 7th candidate statement, from Gary Johnson (TX). I’ve appended it below the divider. The only ones who have not written us back at this time are Bill Still and David Blau.


    Gary E. Johnson
    2001 Parker Lane, Apt. 134, Austin, Texas 78741
    512-441-6378
    sedition@aol.com
    Member since 1981, Member M-000025186

    Libertarian National Committee:

    * Secretary, 1 term.
    * At-Large Member, 2 terms.
    * Regional Representative, 4 terms.
    * Served on the Advertising and Publications Review Committee, the Ballot Access Committee, and the Mailing List Committee and as Public Relations Manager.

    Libertarian Party:

    * Delegate, 14 conventions.
    * Member, Credentials Committee, several conventions.
    * Member, Platform Committee, 1 convention.
    * Monthly Donor, Liberty Pledge.
    * Life Member.

    Libertarian Party of Texas:

    * Secretary.
    * Member, State Executive Committee.
    * Delegate, State Convention, 16 conventions.
    * Member, State Convention Credentials Committee.
    * Newsletter Editor.
    * Libertarian of the Year, 1990.
    * Candidate of the Year, 1992.

    Libertarian Party of Travis County:

    * Chair.
    * Secretary.
    * Member, County Executive Committee.
    * Newsletter Editor.

    Libertarian Party Candidate:

    * U.S. Senator.
    * U.S. Representative.
    * State Senator.
    * State Representative.
    * Presidential Elector.
    * Non-partisan candidate for Mayor, City Council, School Board, and Community College Board.

    No conflicts of interest.

    I acknowledgment that my travel expenses are my responsibility.

  61. Wes Wagner

    NF @79

    He also forgot being part of the group that voted to seat the wrong Oregon delegation 😉

  62. paulie

    Sent to several lists a few minutes ago:

    Thank you Mr. Johnson. IPR will be publishing this, although I’m not sure exactly when. Hopefully today.

    IPR has also received and published statements from and comments on

    Gigi Bowman http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/gigi-bowmans-candidate-statement-for-libertarian-national-committees-vacant-at-large-rep-position/

    Carl Person http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/carl-persons-candidate-statement-for-libertarian-national-committees-open-at-large-position/

    Mark Hinkle http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/mark-hinkles-candidate-statement-re-libertarian-national-committees-open-at-large-position/

    Myself http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/paul-frankels-candidate-statement-re-libertarian-national-committees-open-at-large-position/

    Guy McLendon http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/guy-mcclendons-candidate-statement-re-the-libertarian-national-committees-open-at-large-position/

    Jim Duensing http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/jim-duensings-candidate-statement-re-the-libertarian-national-committees-open-at-large-position/

    As well as a non-candidate analysis from Steve Newton http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/09/dr-steve-newton-on-lnc-at-large-opening/

    So far, Jim Duensing, Mark Hinkle and myself have been answering questions on these threads.

    I hope the other candidates will do so as well, and that the remaining candidates also send us their statements and participate in the conversations.

    I hope LNC members and other people on the lists I copied also read and participate in these conversations as well.

    Jill Pyeatt is posting this series of articles (although other IPR writers are welcome to do so also).

    -paulie 415-690-6352

  63. Wes Wagner

    NF @82

    No… my top pick is probably Paulie… even though I think he is too much of a softy to survive that viper den and some out with a few snake head trophies, he will do no harm.

  64. paulie

    Larry Hutchinson is also running. I don’t know a lot about him other than he is on the rads facebook list. Jill said she’ll post an article for him and for Gary Johnson of TX later today.

    I have more than a few snake heads on my wall from various snakes that thought I was soft. Not that I’m saying the LNC is a viper den.

  65. NewFederalist

    I would find it difficult to think Paulie is soft based on his background and the fact that he is a petitioner. Talk about rejection!

  66. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Mr. Hinkle, how would you feel about the LNC keeping this vote for a replacement rep a secret?

  67. Phillies Defends Hinkle

    Readers will note the idea that Root should be replaced by someone having similar inclinations.

    Mr. Hinkle qualifies, namely his support of Republicans.. I remind you of the exchange:


    Hinkle Defends Listing
    Republican Candidates on LP.org

    During the last election cycle, your Editor discovered that several Republican Congressional candidates had managed to get themselves listed on the LP.org web pages, as though they were our candidates. I sent a note to the national party. The LNC response received from National Chair Hinkle was:

    “George,
    After Massachusetts has ballot access, you can start worrying about other states.
    In the meantime, I suggest you start working on getting the Massachusetts big enough to get on the ballot.
    If you need the LNC’s help to get ballot status, just let us know.
    Otherwise, please fix your problems in your own home state before worrying about your neighbors.
    Yours in liberty………………….Mark Hinkle, LNC Chair”

    As most readers know, Massachusetts has had Libertarian ballot access continuously for the past few decades.

    That’s right — Elect Hinkle! Keep helping Republicans.

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    RC@91,

    Kennedy did run on the “L” line — Liberty Party.

    He did so because Massachusetts’s ballot access laws are such that it would have been much more costly and difficult to run on the Libertarian Party line.

    Of course, Phillies warned against the course of action that triggered the additional expense/difficulty for the Libertarian line, but apparently he was not listened to.

  69. Blau, Unsuited to LNC

    @91, 92 In fairness to both of you, the Kennedy issue was that we were a *major* party, with the consequences that Tom correctly described. “Major Party” is not the same as ballot access. The *reason* we had major party status in 2010 was that in 2004 we ran a minimal exertion candidate for US Senate — a Great guy — with the reasonable expectation that Bob would get <3% of the vote but would bring in extra votes for Barr.

    I was the leadership that made this happen, so it was my fault. Bob got 3.14 % of the vote, which no one expected based on the last campaign like this, and bringing in extra votes for Barr was not so bright, either.

    However, major party status has nothing to do with ballot access for our candidates. "Ballot access", meaning "Libertarian" on the line after your name, requires at most being a "Political Designation", what most of you would call a "minor party", and the designation papers were I am told filed in the 1980s or earlier.

  70. George Phillies

    So 91 and 92 are both mostly correct.

    As a technical aside, note that Massachusetts ballots do not have party lines. The candidates for each office are listed in alphabetical order by last name (or were the last time I checked). Thus, this time I gather

    Johnson
    Obama
    Romney
    Stein

  71. Zapper

    The LP in Massachusetts needs to get ready, build, grow and organize itself to deal with winning 3% and more of the vote and running as a major party.

    Taking steps to remain small and stay under 3% is a strategic mistake. The MA LP should be able to become the number 2 party in the state over time. That should be the strategic goal. They should plan accordingly to get through the difficult years of needing to have a larger pool of registered Libertarians as a major party.

  72. George Phillies

    Zapper does not have a clue what he is talking about, or what steps are needed to respond to our ballot access laws.

    The intelligent approach, which Kennedy demonstrated, is to run statewide candidates under “Liberty”, and become a major party, rather than relying on his cargo-cult theory of party building.

  73. George Phillies

    The point of running statewide candidates on the Liberty line it that they insure that “Libertarian” becomes a major party, as opposed to getting a shiny badge from the state government.

  74. Andy

    “Zapper // Sep 26, 2012 at 2:55 am

    The LP in Massachusetts needs to get ready, build, grow and organize itself to deal with winning 3% and more of the vote and running as a major party.

    Taking steps to remain small and stay under 3% is a strategic mistake.”

    “George Phillies // Sep 26, 2012 at 8:16 am

    Zapper does not have a clue what he is talking about, or what steps are needed to respond to our ballot access laws.”

    George is correct here, in that Massachusetts has some unusual ballot access laws, and dealing with them is not anywhere near as easy as Zapper seems to believe.

    You see, it’s not that hard (relatively speaking) to get on the ballot in Massachusetts (although most candidates have to use separate petition pages, as in most of the candidates can not be bundled on the same petition page, so this makes it a bit more difficult than in states where one petition page can cover all of the candidates and/or the entire party), and to get the 3% of the vote for a statewide office to gain major party status isn’t that difficult, the bigger problems come after a part gets major party status.

    You see, in Massachusetts, even the major party candidates have to petition for ballot access (although I’m pretty sure that the major party candidates for President are exempted from this), and when one petitions to be on the ballot in Massachusetts as a major party candidate, only a Massachusetts registered voter who is registered under that candidates party banner or who is registered unenrolled (as in a person who is not registered to vote under any party banner) can sign the petition. So this means that when the Libertarian Party has major party status in Massachusetts, Massachusetts voters who are registered Libertarians and registered unenrolled are the only ones who can sign petitions for Libertarian Party candidates to be on the ballot. This makes the petitioning much more difficult because one has got to screen out all registered voters who are registered Democrats, Republicans, Green-Rainbow (that’s the name that the Green Party uses in Massachusetts), or who are registered under any other party banner. This means that a large percentage of registered voters can’t sign petitions for Libertarian Party candidates when the Libertarian Party has major party status in Massachusetts.

    Now one could say something like, “Well just increase the number of registered Libertarians in Massachusetts and then it will be easier to gather petition signatures to place them on the ballot when the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts has major party status.” My response to this is that is far easier said than done. The LP of MA would have to raise a lot of money to do a voter registration drive, and they would have to register a heck of a lot of people under the Libertarian Party banner for it to make a noticeable difference in making the ballot access petitioning for major party candidates easier for them.

    Sure, ideally the Libertarian Party of Massachusetts would be able to overcome this hurdle by getting enough volunteer manpower and raising enough money to make it happen, but once again, this is far easier said than done.

    The legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has done a good job of punishing new(er) parties who gain major party status to the point where they continually get knocked back down to having minor party status.

  75. zapper

    @97,98,99

    Actually, I was unaware that you had the option of collecting “unaffiliated” signatures along with “Libertarian” signatures as a major party.

    This means that it is not at all difficult to run as a major party in Massachusetts. There are plenty of unaffiliated voters, enough to gather the signatures, and a serious campaign and a serious party should be doing just that. Reaching out to unaffiliated voters as well as registering Libertarians is the way to go, it is the Strategically optimum plan, it is not too difficult to carry out and you guys are foolish and chickenshit for not doing it.

    In Maine it is much more difficult. Upon obtaining party status, only registered members of your party can sign petitions.

    It is still optimum for the Maine LP to seek and aquire ballot status. This happened once before. Serious candidates can then petition door to door with petitions and voter registration cards and change of registration cards. Several were able to change enough voters over to get on the ballot – and in Maine the LP had to begin from zero registrants having been denied the ability to register Libertarian prior to beginning the process of becoming a major party.

    As a result, the most serious state house candidate was able to convert enough Ls to get on the ballot, win 40% of the vote in the home district and 26% districtwide.

    This Liberty party stuff is just lazy, short-sighted and cowardly. It amounts to accepting defeat and refusing to take the relatively easy steps needed to become number 2 in a state where the Rs are nearly dead.

    The MA LP needs serious leadership with the ambition and intent to grow and win, the experience to organize and build a real party, leadership skills that include the ability and willingness to follow those who actually know what to do, and stategic vision to design and execute a winning plan that is creative, realistic and viable.

  76. Andy

    “This means that it is not at all difficult to run as a major party in Massachusetts. There are plenty of unaffiliated voters, enough to gather the signatures, and a serious campaign and a serious party should be doing just that. Reaching out to unaffiliated voters as well as registering Libertarians is the way to go, it is the Strategically optimum plan, it is not too difficult to carry out and you guys are foolish and chickenshit for not doing it.”

    First of all, if you are addressing the “chickenshit” comment to me, I do not live in Massachusetts. I have petitioned in Massachusetts a few times, but that’s it.

    Second of all, being “chickenshit” has got nothing to do with it. The fact of the matter is that when one has major party status in Massachusetts, the petitioning for ballot access becomes more difficult, not being the number of signatures required changes, but because the percentage of Massachusetts voter who are eligible to sign the petitions decreases. Given that only registered Libertarians and registered unaffiliated can sign the petition, this means around 50% or more of Massachusetts registered voters can not sign petitions to place Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot. While it is certainly still possible to get enough valid signatures, and while there have been LP candidates in Massachusetts who have gotten on the ballot as major party candidates in spite of this obstacle, the obstacle is a difficult one to overcome and it should not be taken lightly. Carla Howell got on the Massachusetts ballot as a Libertarian Party candidate with major party status, however, she had to spend more money and her spend had to take more time to check signatures than they would have if the LP of MA did not have major party status at that time.

    “This Liberty party stuff is just lazy, short-sighted and cowardly.”

    I don’t think that Joe Kennedy would have made it on the ballot in Massachusetts had he petitioned for US Senate under the Libertarian Party banner because he would have had to have used the major party ballot access petition. He had a hard enough time making it on the ballot as it was using the minor party petition. I think that having Joe Kennedy on the ballot – even under the Liberty Party banner instead of the Libertarian Party banner – was more valuable than not having him on the ballot at all (which is likely what would have happened if he had used the major party status petition as a Libertarian Party candidate).

  77. paulie

    That is definitely what would have happened. Not only can Democrats, Republicans etc not sign, but the petition period is less favorable weatherwise.

    Joe had a hard enough time coming up with money and was able to do it by loaning personal money to the campaign, borrowing more, and piggybacking off other petitions we had going on at the same time.

    If we had had to get signatures (for practical purposes only) from unenrolled voters when it was cold out and the other petitions were not going on, he would have failed. The same goes for Bob Underwood in 2008 etc.

    Even a Ron Paul Republican had a hard time getting on his party’s primary for Congress, and no other Republicans were running. How many Libertarians could run for Congress, etc under those rules?

    Practically, it would mean that only Presidential candidates would be on the ballot as Libertarians in Mass.

    It’s true that Carla and Michael were able to fund Libertarian ballot drives under major party rules, but the LP as a whole was several times larger at that time, plus they had a nationwide donor list and a lot of experience with campaigns and ballot drives in more than one state. Without that experience, list and donor base, it is unlikely that they could have even been on the ballot.

  78. George Phillies

    Underwood 2008 did not have to petition separately; he was carried onto the ballot by the Presidential petitioning. That’s a special case applying only to statewide candidates of minor parties.

  79. zapper

    @101,102

    Thank you for your support. It has actually been done in Massachusetts as you have confirmed for me.

    Since we should be building not declining, we should be ambitious and hard working, not lazy and defeatist, the LP MA needs to move forward, register Ls, build itself and work to obtain, run candidates and maintain major party status on the road to becoming the 2nd party in the state. Evidence shows that it has been done so it can be done.

    As to collecting signatures – active candidates can work wonders, door to door, with lists of registered unaffiliated voters. Campaign and get their signatures. Convert and gain party members, donors and campaign supporters and volunteers.

    Sure, paid petitioners want the easy way. But the LP should not be run to satisfy the wants and easy high income of paid petitioners. We spend too much per signature as it is.

    I’ve petitioned in MA on several occasions. It isn’t difficult.

    To build a real party means establishing a stand-alone affiliate in every county in the state for a state LP just as the national LP needs to establish and assist a state affiliate in every state in the US.

    Mass has only 14 counties. It’s not hard. Maine did it with 16 counties and a much smaller population and was able to build over 30 city and town affiliates of the county groups, all in under 2 years. It takes leadership to do it and leadership to keep it going.

    Start now. Build the LP. Plan years ahead. Get every county LP organized. Waste no time on divisive argumentation of pedantic points of principle except during the State Party platform debate once every 2 or 4 years. There should be an LP outreach event in every county every month.

    Set up LP booths at every county fair, state fair, gun show, go to university campuses. Project based organizing. The goal of each affiliate is to grow build the mailing list of interested individuals, donors and members. Institute massive, continuous ongoing fundraising. Get bigger every year.

    No more whining and legalistic excuses. Just do it.

  80. Andy

    “It’s true that Carla and Michael were able to fund Libertarian ballot drives under major party rules, but the LP as a whole was several times larger at that time, plus they had a nationwide donor list and a lot of experience with campaigns and ballot drives in more than one state. Without that experience, list and donor base, it is unlikely that they could have even been on the ballot.”

    Carla and Michael also had the luxury of being able to campaign for office full time, as in that they did not have to work full time jobs outside of politics like most people. This meant that all of their attention could be focused on the campaign, and that they’d have time to do things like check petition signatures.

    Joe Kennedy was not able to campaign full time as he worked a full time job outside of politics. He worked hard on his campaign, but it’s not like it was the only thing going on in his life at that time.

  81. zapper

    Running Joe Kennedy was a missed opportunity. He may have been a fine candidate, but he should have run as an L and the Mass leadership should have made the effort to build and grow. They had years to plan and get ready.

    Clever to run a “Kennedy” in MA and clever to run under the “Liberty” party banner? … No, just legalistic, lazy and shortsighted.

  82. paulie

    As to collecting signatures – active candidates can work wonders, door to door, with lists of registered unaffiliated voters. Campaign and get their signatures. Convert and gain party members, donors and campaign supporters and volunteers.

    Sure, paid petitioners want the easy way. But the LP should not be run to satisfy the wants and easy high income of paid petitioners. We spend too much per signature as it is.

    Who do you think has the time to collect 10,000 valid signatures while working some other job?

    Joe Kennedy paid 1.00 per signature, an excellent rate he was able to get only because we are supporters and put him in touch with other professional petitioners at no charge, something petitioners and petition companies don’t normally do (they usually work an angle to become coordinators and make money off any such referrals), and only because there were already petitioners there with other petitions. There is no chanced he would have been on the ballot nearly as economically otherwise, and he had to really stretch his resources to come up with even the money he did come up with.

    There is a reason why professional petitioners rarely go door to door. Door to door only yields about ten signatures an hour, as opposed to 20-30 at a decent public location or store, or 50-100 at a good festival, busy metro stop at rush hour, or fresh college.

    Also, door to door is only good for about three hours on a weeknight plus maybe 10 hours a day on weekends. Whereas, I have been able to get signatures in public places at all hours of the day and night (literally – I once petitioned for 36 hours straight. Try that door to door without being shot or taken to jail).

    Thus, a door to door campaign would cost about 5.00 per signature minimum.

    Joe Kennedy, Bob Underwood and other LP activists in Mass don’t have that kind of money to throw around, nor are there nearly enough volunteers to do it without hiring petitioners.

    Ergo, those candidates would simply not be on the ballot. On the plus side the national party would save the cost of the quadrennial presidential petition drive.

  83. paulie

    Running Joe Kennedy was a missed opportunity. He may have been a fine candidate, but he should have run as an L

    He got tons of news coverage, most of which called him a libertarian and mentioned issues. I’d say that was a good thing for the LP. He even made the NY times and other national news.

  84. zapper

    Statewide office means it’s a group effort. The candidate should be able to get 1,000 door to door and find more volunteers and supporters while doing so.

    If the MA LP would get itself organized, with 14 affiliates, they could gather thousands more with volunteers.

    I’ve never done 36 hours of straight petitioning, but I have collected 1,100 signatures for an LP candidate in 6 hours and I’ve done 3,000 in a week. I’ve coordinated collecting 30,000 in 20 days with only 3 petitioners at the outset and the weather never got above zero day or night for the entire 20 days. I’ve coordinated dozens of ballot drives in tough states and never had one fail.

    The MA LP should go for major party status at all times and always run under the Libertarian banner. They should consider the difficulty in the transition from being small and barely able to handle the gathering of sigs as a challenging milestone on the way to second place and then victory.

  85. paulie

    Petitioning is harder nowadays. It’s gotten a lot harder since I started in the 90s.

    People are worried about identity theft much more now, and hassles at locations are much more prevalent given the post-9/11 mindset. Also, since everyone has cell phones now (or just about), 1) they are on their phones much of the time (some people will ask them anyway but I generally don’t) and are more likely to use those phones to call police, store managers, security guards and so on.

    Also, ipods seem to be much more prevalent than walkmen ever were.

    There’s also been a lot of anti-petition propaganda, primarily by government employee unions using scorched earth tactics against initiatives they oppose as well as Democrats Against Democracy who are mad about Nader 2000. Many people don’t distinguish between different kinds of petitions or different kinds of independent candidates/parties.

  86. zapper

    Petitioning seemed harder every day that I did it as well. The hardest, however, was standing outside a supermarket with frozen ink pens on dark January evenings with the temp at 20 degrees below zero.

    State parties need to get themselves organized and increase their size if we want to make the process easier. There is no substitute for having a bigger party.

  87. paulie

    You have my records beat. I only made it into the single digits below.

    I’d like to build a bigger party, but when the barriers are high enough many states never get off the ground.

  88. zapper

    Which brings us back to the topic at hand.

    The replacement NatCom member. I think Hinkle should stay in CA and help there. They need a lot of party building right now and 20,000 new registrations. They need to get their county groups organized – only 58 and 30 times the population of ME with 16 counties. They can do it. Hinkle should help lead that.

    We need your expertise and reasonableness on LNC.

  89. paulie

    I have one LNC member that I know of that would vote for me, Starchild.

    Most of my supporters, are, unfortunately, not on the LNC themselves, thus don’t get a vote.

    The information I have from more than one source now is that Hinkle and Blau have the support of almost all the LNC members sewn up between them.

    I’m not sure which one is in the lead, although I think it may be Hinkle.

    Whether Mark gets back on LNC or not I hope to have his help in getting the California project moving.

  90. Jill Pyeatt Post author

    Paulie @ 116: I completely agree that, either way, the CA Ex Com could use Mark’s help.

    Maybe after the election in November we can go into some kind of emergency mode and make registering people our top priority. I guess that means me, since I’m a region chair. Maybe we can get some kind of fun contest going among the regions. Hmmm…maybe I should start doing that, and spending less time on IPR…

  91. paulie

    We should use the petition drive as a jumping off point to organize every county and college campus in the state.

    We have the team that can get that done.

    415-690-6352 if anyone has any questions.

  92. From Der Sidelines

    @118: In California? Good luck with that; you’ve got about 43 of the 58 counties to cover and the entire UCal and CalState system to cover not to mention the independent colleges and universities there–at least 2 dozen in LA metro alone.

    That one is a very tall order.

  93. paulie

    I know. Very well. Been to all those counties and almost all the campuses. Worked most of them with other things.

    I can’t do it for free, or all that cheap, but I can do it.

  94. Pingback: Compilation of Candidate Statements for Open At-Large Position on the LNC | Independent Political Report

  95. Pingback: Dr. Marc Allan Feldman Running for LNC At Large | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *