Libertarian Party: LNC Motion to Donate to the Congressional Campaign of Joe Buchman (Utah)

This vote was just held by the Libertarian National Committee:

Motion: for the LNC to contribute $5,000 to support the Congressional campaign of Joe Buchman (Utah)

Co-Sponsors: Harlos, Bilyeu, Demarest, Starchild

And the results:

Voting “aye”: Adams, Demarest, Hagan, Harlos, Hayes, Hewitt, Sarwark, Starchild, Vohra

Voting “nay”: Bittner, Goldstein, Katz, Lark, Marsh, Mattson, McKnight, Redpath

With a final vote tally of 9-8, the motion PASSES.

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party and tagged on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado, Colorado State Coordinator for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, as well as Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LPCO, LPRC, or LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

31 thoughts on “Libertarian Party: LNC Motion to Donate to the Congressional Campaign of Joe Buchman (Utah)

  1. Aiden James

    Sorry, but major waste of money. That’s $5000 that could have went into brand building advertising that you could have targeted IN Utah, but left the candidate name of the ad. Then in the voting booth voters can easily correlate brand with candidate name on the ballot.

  2. Chuck Moulton

    I’m with Bill Redpath on this one. I donated a little bit to Joe Buchman myself, but direct LNC funding of candidates is a collossal waste of money.

    Candidates, campaign managers, candidates supporters, and the LNC now waste countless hours arguing about how to divide up the pork. And Caryn Ann Harlos spends a lot of energy bringing back the bacon to her region.

    The LP should be recruiting candidates, providing data support, and promoting them, not shifting scarce money around to whichever candidates network the most internally in the LP.

    If I were on the LNC, the only candidate I would have sent money to was the Texas railroad guy who maintained Texas LP ballot access and avoided the need for a $500,000 ballot drive. I was vocally against the Ed Coleman donation at the time — though even then I was not on the LNC.

    It used to be the biggest camdidates would send out nationwide fundraising letters and try to go viral on email or Facebook. Now everyone goes hat in hand to the LNC… and I’m going to get fundraising letters about hiring a candidate support staffer or paying off the building while the LNC continues to flush money down the drain.

  3. Andy

    There should have been more opposition to the LNC giving money to the campaign of Assemblyman John Moore in Nevada. I was skeptical about this having been a sound idea, my my skepticism ended up being for good reason, as it turned out to be a complete waste of money. Throwing that money in a campfire would have been a more productive use of it than sending it to Moore was.

  4. Joseph Buchman

    Additional donations are welcome!

    http://www.gotoL.vote/donate

    As for SPENDING money in Utah, I’m fairly certain just like the LP position on federal education dollars that I can invest our funds more wisely here than some central planners in DC, or Arlington. Apparently a slim majority of the LNC trusts me for that as well.

    In other news . . .

    I’ll be on 600 radio stations Saturday night (10:05PM Pacific; 11:05 Mountain; 1:05AM (early Sunday morning Eastern).

    SIRIUS XM 146, KNRS in SLC, KOA in Denver, WHAS in Louisville, WOR in NYC, KFI in LA, KGO in SF, KLBJ in Austin, WOAI in San Antonio, KLIF Dallas, CKLW Windsor or you can listen to the online stream live, or the podcast for the next five years or more.

    Coast to Coast AM find your station here –

    https://www.coasttocoastam.com/stations

    I’ll be directing listeners to join the LP at LP.org and join in our call for government transparency, congressional oversight and the like, but hey, have fun with the way Coast is spinning it if you want (and, yes, I’ll be followed by Haunted Baseball) —

    “Joining Richard Syrett in the first half is Joseph Buchman, who is running for congress in Utah on a platform that includes UFO disclosure. He’ll discuss his political intent for disclosure and his “Go to L” campaign which includes life, liberty, love, legalization and “let us alone.”

    It’s not that different than the FreedomFest presentation I gave last week:

    “Is ET Libertarian? the NAP, self-ownership and high technology: If THEY are here, THEY are libertarians!

    See: http://sched.co/AzEL

    You can get the audio here – https://miracleofamerica.com/collections/freedom-fest-2017/products/17-113

    Or call Tim Hagan, he attended the presentation.

    (Freedom Fest also had Nick Gillespie with “Is Spock Libertarian?”

    And you can see the unprecedented debate I was in with Three Republicans running in their primary, me, and the IAP candidate here in Utah. The Democrat was invited but did not show.

    Never in the history of American politics have two general election candidates been in a debate with three primary candidates.

    Watch that here –

    https://www.facebook.com/KUTV2News/videos/10155696826819406/

    Starts about 20 minutes in.

    Or read today’s City Weekly article:

    https://www.cityweekly.net/utah/mess-o-congress/Content?oid=5145005

    Or just donate – http://www.gotoL.vote/donate

  5. Rebel Alliance

    From what I saw in the LNC thread, Vohra was a No vote.

    I do support the LNC spending money to occasionally assist Libertarian candidates, but that can also be a pandora’s box. I would propose that two criteria be necessary for receiving any such funds:

    (1) The candidate has established a track record as a clear and principled spokesperson for the LP (this would avoid future John Moore debacles).

    (2) The candidate has launched a strong campaign, has shown clear momentum, and has a clear chance of actually winning, or of accomplishing a ballot-access goal (i.e. obtaining a certain percentage to gain major party status for the LP). If it’s anticipated that they might come up just shy, funds from the LNC might help push them over the top (this criteria would separate them from the numerous other hardworking Libertarian candidates who will undoubtedly also want funds, but who don’t have a chance at winning or passing the threshold).

  6. Rebel Alliance

    By the way, I agree with Ken Moellman. The LNC does NOT need to establish a subcommittee to decide which candidates to help, that’d be creating excess bureaucracy.

    The LNC are elected leaders and can do it directly themselves. Discuss it, decide upon criteria (perhaps based on what I suggested above), and then act when the situations present themselves, while keeping in mind the tradeoffs from other budget needs.

  7. dL

    Is ET Libertarian? the NAP, self-ownership and high technology: If THEY are here, THEY are libertarians!

    The question is like asking if Santa Claus is libertarian. There is no evidence of ET. In a real sense, the lack of evidence for ET(or ET signaling) is troubling given the probability of the much more ubiquitous planetary conditions for carbon-based life forms than previously thought. The implication: biological intelligent life self-destructs over evolutionary time. This is the weak anthropic doomsday theorem.

    With regards to NAP & Tech, you might find what you are looking for in a game theory treatment of AI robots. 6 or 7 years ago when I was studying David Gauthier’s moral contractarianism(Morals by Agreement), I ran across some academic papers that suggested Gauthier’s theory was better suited for robots than humans(humans are plagued by an evolutionary biology race to the higher moral ground pattern). You may not have heard of Gauthier, but you probably have heard of Jan Narveson. Narveson advanced a radical libertarian interpretation of Gauthier’s work. You can get a gist of the idea from this old post
    https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/the-moral-bargain-the-wind-cries-mary/

    Freedom Fest also had Nick Gillespie with “Is Spock Libertarian?”

    No. He was not. Personally, I never got into the franchise b/c I found the premise of biological long-range exploration of the universe for intelligent civilizations to be unscientific fantasy, and the notion of a planetary federation central authority to be nonsense. The one interesting science-fiction related aspect of the franchise was the “HoloDeck,” introduced w/ the “Next Generation.”

  8. Darcy G Richardson

    “The question is like asking if Santa Claus is libertarian.”

    Santa Claus isn’t a libertarian, but I believe Scrooge, the cold-hearted miser who despised Christmas in the Charles Dickens novel, might be one.

  9. dL

    Santa Claus isn’t a libertarian, but I believe Scrooge, the cold-hearted miser who despised Christmas in the Charles Dickens novel, might be one.

    Of course, one notes Scrooge only despised Christmas through the first 2/5 of the book.

  10. paulie

    (1) The candidate has established a track record as a clear and principled spokesperson for the LP (this would avoid future John Moore debacles).

    Are you sure you want the LNC to be in charge of deciding which LP candidates are clear and principled and which ones are not?

  11. paulie

    Santa Claus isn’t a libertarian, but I believe Scrooge, the cold-hearted miser who despised Christmas in the Charles Dickens novel, might be one.

    You have a twisted view of what libertarians believe, then. Actually, I think Santa Claus is more compatible with a libertarian vision, since he does not force anyone to give him contributions (but then again…he knows when you’ve been good or bad? Sounds like some NSA panopticon nightmare). Scrooge before his change of heart expects the poorhouses to take care of the poor; IIRC those were government-mandated, involuntary forms of incarceration.

  12. paulie

    Of course, one notes Scrooge only despised Christmas through the first 2/5 of the book.

    It’s been many, many years since I read it, and my head is full of swiss cheese holes, but I thought the change of heart was only right at the end?

  13. dL

    It’s been many, many years since I read it, and my head is full of swiss cheese holes, but I thought the change of heart was only right at the end?

    By the end of the first chapter, after receiving the visit from Marley’s Ghost, Scrooge quit saying “Bah Humbug” and never said it again for the rest of the book.

    Scrooge closed the window, and examined the door by which the Ghost had entered. It was double-locked, as he had locked it with his own hands, and the bolts were undisturbed. He tried to say “Humbug!” but stopped at the first syllable. And being, from the emotion he had undergone, or the fatigues of the day, or his glimpse of the Invisible World, or the dull conversation of the Ghost, or the lateness of the hour, much in need of repose; went straight to bed, without undressing, and fell asleep upon the instant.

  14. paulie

    Per wikipedia:

    In England, Wales and Ireland (but not in Scotland) a poorhouse was more commonly known as a workhouse. Before the introduction of the Poor Law, each parish would maintain its own workhouse and often these rural ‘poor houses’ would be simple farms with the occupants dividing their times between working the farm and employed on maintaining local roads and other parish works. An example of one such is Strand House in East Sussex. In early Victorian times (see Poor Law), poverty was seen as a dishonorable state. As depicted by Charles Dickens, a workhouse could resemble a reformatory, often housing whole families, or a penal labour regime giving manual work to the indigent and subjecting them to physical punishment. At many poorhouses/workhouses, men and women were split up with no communication between them.

    Does Darcy really believe libertarians support that?

  15. dL

    Does Darcy really believe libertarians support that?

    I think he was employing sarcasm apropos to the original enterprise(attempting to C&P an ideology onto fictional entities)

  16. George Phillies

    Decisions on spending LNC money should be made by the LNC, though delegating buts to its own committees is plausible.

    The folks who say that the LNC should set up a candidate support committee or the like to decide who to support should be asked why they have not moved to do such a thing.

  17. Bondurant

    How often does the LNC allocate funds to a specific candidate? What criteria is weighed in deciding to make such a decision? From past IPR articles it appears Buchman’s candidacy is viable so I can get behind it but I am curious how the LNC makes such decisions.

  18. Chuck Moulton

    Bondurant wrote (7/28/2017):

    […] I am curious how the LNC makes such decisions.

    How it works is Caryn Ann Harlos asks for momey for every candidate in her region. Then the LNC votes. A lot of people posture as against because they haven’t come up with a process for evaluating candidates, then fail to ever propose such a process before Caryn Ann’s next candidate asks. Whenever a LNC member votes against, she sends 5-10 emails to the list asking them to reconsider their vote. After a lot of lobbying through email, phone, and Facebook, the weaker LNC members relent and plead for mercy to stop the barrage. Then the allocation passes by 1 vote. Finally during the budget meeting they all scratch their head wondering where the money went. The candidates each get 1% in the election with no ballot access benefit. Caryn Ann Harlos touts all the bacon she brought back to her district in her LNC regional representative re-election literature.

    Hope that helps.

  19. Rebel Alliance

    Paulie: “Are you sure you want the LNC to be in charge of deciding which LP candidates are clear and principled and which ones are not?”

    Heh, I hear you. However, the decisions would be above-board, members would be able to see which candidates are getting support and why, and LNC reps would be on the record for their decisions.

    That’s far better than establishing a subcommittee, which would end up burying the issue or doing nothing. How many members are even aware of what the various subcommittees are doing? How often do these subcommittees make any decision at all?

    Spending LP funds on particular candidates is unique enough, and important enough, that these decisions should be made directly by the LNC in each instance.

  20. paulie

    You placed the emphasis on a different part of that sentence than I meant. I guess you read it more as “Are you sure you want the LNC to be in charge of deciding which LP candidates are clear and principled and which ones are not?” (implying some other subcommittee created by the LNC would be better at that). What I meant was more like “Are you sure you want the LNC to be in charge of deciding which LP candidates are clear and principled and which ones are not?” As in, that this is the criteria which they should use, creating a storm of debate over who is clear and principled enough and who isn’t.

  21. Starchild

    Regarding how the LNC allocates money to candidates, Chuck Moulton writes in part (July 28, 2017 at 16:19), …Caryn Ann Harlos asks for money for every candidate in her region. Then the LNC votes. A lot of people posture as against because they haven’t come up with a process for evaluating candidates, then fail to ever propose such a process before Caryn Ann’s next candidate asks. Whenever a LNC member votes against, she sends 5-10 emails to the list asking them to reconsider their vote. After a lot of lobbying through email, phone, and Facebook, the weaker LNC members relent and plead for mercy to stop the barrage… Finally during the budget meeting they all scratch their head wondering where the money went…

    Some exaggeration there, but LOL! 🙂 Actually however, I have proposed not one, but two possible methods for allocating funds to candidates and campaigns. My most recent (and preferred) proposal, which involves moving funds and decision-making to the state affiliate parties, an idea voiced by LNC regional rep. Ken Moellmann, can be found here:

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

    Signing in with a Google account is necessary in order to add your proposed changes or comments. I would prefer to use a different platform, so if anyone knows of an alternative that offers similar functionality to Google Docs (basically an online-based word-processing document to which multiple people can contribute), please share. Or if you need help figuring out how to use Google Docs, please ask (with the caveat that I’m not an expert myself).

    Love & Liberty,

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

  22. Starchild

    I think it’s good for the Libertarian Party to support deserving candidates and campaigns, and I believe Joe Buchman’s campaign for U.S. Senate is worth supporting for several reasons:

    1) Joe is solidly libertarian
    2) He is running an active campaign
    3) It is a special election, so there are few if any other Libertarian campaigns with national visibility going on right now
    4) He has already gotten good visibility by appearing in a televised debate as well as receiving other mainstream media attention

    By far the majority of LP campaigns (basically all except presidential campaigns) happen at the state or local level. But a good chunk (perhaps a majority) of funds raised by the LP are raised at the national level. For this reason, I think it makes some sense for the LNC to put money toward state and local campaigns. But I now favor a kind of “block grant” approach of giving money to the state affiliate parties and letting them decide how to allocate the funds, as a more decentralized alternative to the LNC making funding decisions directly.

    Love & Liberty,

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

  23. Chuck Moulton

    Starchild,

    I read the LNC-Business list and I saw your proposals contemporaneously. Even if I were in favor of the LNC giving money to camdidates at all — which I’m not because it is a huge waste of money and time — your proposals are unnecessarily complicated.

    A true double blind method is impossible because identifying information will always leak through. Even if that were possible to implement, the costs of implementation would far exceed the benefits. The biggest problem with LNC distribution of funds is not the money lost (though that is a huge problem itself), but the time lost with candidates jockeying for money and LNC members or committee members evaluating them. You take that time loss up to the next level with huge committees. All you really need is a set of questions, a binder of answers, and LNC votes.

    That said, at least you put up a proposal. The others haven’t anted up. Yours ought to be used as a starting point for discussion to lead to a better method rather than pretending it doesn’t exist.

  24. Andy

    I think Joe is a fine candidate, but since the LNC only has limited funds to disperse, and since $5,000 is not enough money to make much of an impact in a US House race, if the LNC is going to spend its resources on a candidate, why not do it in a race that is actually winnable, and where $5,000 would make more of an impact? There were candidates earlier this year in state legislative races and local races that could have used that money.

    How about focusing on electing Lobertarians to seats in state legislatures, and as county Sheriff (where, if elected, they can appoint Libertarians a deputies), and on taking over county boards/commissions and city/town councils? There are winnable races like this all over the country.

  25. Chuck Moulton

    A real “decentralized alternative” is candidates raise their own damn money. That’s how it used to be and it worked just fine. I have donated to candidates all over the country and I’ve gotten fundraising appeals from all over the country — by email and snail mail. Why don’t candidates send out fundraising appeals anymore? Because they are lazy and want big daddy LNC to hand them a welfare check — that’s why.

  26. Chuck Moulton

    It’s not rocket science: If you are a Libertarian candidate and you want to raise a bunch of money, then write a fundraising letter. Go look at the pile of snail mail letters and emails you’ve received from out of state candidates in past years… pick a few and rent or buy their mailing lists. Then send your letter to that list.

    You’re welcome. I bet a lot of fundraising consultants or professional campaign managers would charge thousands of dollars for that common sense.

  27. Starchild

    Chuck – My second and preferred formula for candidate/campaign funding is not terribly complicated. Sam Goldstein also just put up a motion, however it doesn’t actually propose a formula, but just passes the buck to a committee to come up with a formula. I agree that a perfect double-blind system for allocating funds may not be possible, but that doesn’t mean that seeking to minimize possible bias in the process is pointless. Candidates can always still do their own fundraising, but there’s a lot of time cost involved in renting or buying mailing lists and writing fundraising letters too.

    Andy – As to why Joe Buchman’s campaign got funded by the LNC and the others to which you refer did not, probably the main reason is that they as far as I know did not approach the LNC to request funds, and we didn’t necessarily even hear about their races. There’s also the consideration that “winnability” in conventional terms isn’t everything. We also want candidates who are solidly libertarian, who are getting the message out there in relatively high-profile races, etc. Joe was (at least to many of us) probably more of a “known quantity” than many if not all of those other candidates might have been, since he served on the LNC Audit Committee, is a state chair, etc. Still, I agree that a more impartial method would be preferable, hence my “double-blind” proposal to which Chuck refers.

Leave a Reply

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