Libertarian Party: Previously Confidential Portion of Campaign Contract

Last September there was a bit of a brouhaha over the contract with the Johnson campaign after it was revealed that the original provisions called for it to be essentially eternally secret. This result in this IPR author (Caryn Ann Harlos, Region 1 Representative) to move to rescind the authority of Chair Sarwark to enter in to this contact. This eventually resulted in a compromise in which a portion of the contract was released immediately with the remainder to be released one year thereafter.

That year has now passed. Below is the part of the contract withheld as confidential (for reference here is a link to the non-confidential portion).

Download (PDF, 243KB)

Was this worth creating a culture of secrecy and distrust over? I don’t think so, and urge the delegates next time to refuse to tolerate any unneeded secrecy.

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.

25 thoughts on “Libertarian Party: Previously Confidential Portion of Campaign Contract

  1. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    Tom – Nope, there’s nothing. But at least one side of the agreement insisted upon this or the whole thing would have been made public after my hissy fit.

    Marc – states will not get this data.

  2. George Phillies

    Tom, I believe Marc’s excellent question and Caryn’s response answers your question. If the Libertarian body politic had learned that the contacts developed by the campaign were not going to be made available to states, ever, there might have been a negative reaction, for large values of “might” and “negative”.

    Behold, another Presidential election cycle seemingly significantly flushed for party building purposes.

    Perhaps I am missing something more positive here.

    George

  3. George Phillies

    In my opinion, the LNC should have rejected this contract. However, Nick is a good person,a nd may have decided that a bit of the loaf was better than none.

  4. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    George, that wasn’t a secret. Nick said that openly last year. And we had no choice to reject it – unless my motion to rescind had been pursued.

  5. Andy

    “Marc Montoni
    October 12, 2017 at 21:01
    So when will the campaign’s names/addresses etc be imported into the main LP database, and shared with the state & local parties?”

    I talked to somebody recently who made a bunch of fundraising calls from the Johnson 2016 donor list. They said that a bunch of the people they called had no interest in the Libertarian Party and only donated because they were hoping to swing the result of the presidential election.

  6. paulie

    I’ll vouch for that one. I talked to the same source as well and was present for that conversation. Has anyone been able to use that list and get different results?

  7. Shane

    It’s fair but leaves out a common element. When someone from say, the Campaign list, is solicited from the LNC, that donor data is then owned by the LNC without exception.

    That’s how prospecting works.

    As far as effectiveness, all of this contract effort wasn’t likely worth the hassle. Campaign donors are distinctly different than organization donors. It’s very hard to get an election season donor to convert off-cycle unless the organization is directly tied to the candidate.

  8. Andy

    :Tony From Long Island
    October 13, 2017 at 09:01
    . . . .of course you did . . . . You’re nothing if not predictable.”

    Predictable response from the predictable jackass Democrat from Long Island.

    Why are you even here? This is a site for people who are into minor party and independent candidates. You should be at some message forum for Democrats.

  9. Andy

    Shane said: “As far as effectiveness, all of this contract effort wasn’t likely worth the hassle. Campaign donors are distinctly different than organization donors. It’s very hard to get an election season donor to convert off-cycle unless the organization is directly tied to the candidate.”

    A lot of the people off of the Johnson 2016 list that this person called weren’t even libertarians. They were Democrats or Republicans who donated to Johnson 2016 only because they were trying to influence the outcome of the presidential election. It was not that they were libertarians who were only interested in the presidential election. These people were not libertarians at all.

    Speaking of which, I mentioned this here before, but one of the donors last year was Christy Walton, who is one of the heirs of the Wal-Mart fortune. She donated to Johnson 2016, and she also gave the maximum donation to the Libertarian National Committee. I don’t know if she donated to one of the Gary Johnson Super PACs (I believe there were two of them last year), but she could have (I would have to look into this further to confirm either way).

    If anyone out there knows anything about the politics of the Walton family that is behind Wal-Mart, you’d know that they are not even remotely libertarian. Wal-Mart is the biggest corporate welfare whore in the country. They send out lobbyists at the local, state, and federal level, to lobby in favor of more corporate welfare to benefit them, and they have even sent out lobbyists to lobby against cutting government food stamp programs, since they are the #1 profiteer off of food stamps (or EBT cards). Wal-Mart actually has a program where they refer their employees to get on government welfare programs. A lot of Wal-Marts are built on land that was seized via eminent domain and given to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart donated money to the campaign to get Top Two Primary passed (remember, Top Two Primary has the effect of blocking minor party and independent candidates from getting on general election ballots).

    Christy Walton is not even remotely libertarian, yet if you look up the LNC’s Chairman’s Circle from last year (the Chairman’s Circle is the designation given to people who donate the maximum amount of money currently allowed under law to the Libertarian National Committee during a period of one year, which I believe is currently capped at around $33,400), you’ll see Christy Walton listed, as if she is some kind of great libertarian.

    These donations from people like Christy Walton were not meant to spread an actual libertarian message, but rather, they were to pervert the Libertarian Party’s message with candidates who think that Hillary Clinton is a “wonderful public servant.”

  10. Shane

    Andy, we have a long history of being funded by other interests. There’s nothing wrong with taking their money or even soliciting it as long as it doesn’t come with strings.

  11. Andy

    Just to clarify, I am not saying that there were no libertarians who donated to Johnson 2016. I’m sure they got donations from some people who are libertarians (although I question how libertarian some of them are, and I also question the sense of strategy of anyone who donated to whom I would reasonably apply the libertarian label). My point was that a disturbing number of donations came from people who were clearly not libertarians, and who had no interest in the Libertarian Party or cause, and who only donated because they were hoping to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

  12. Andy

    How is what I said “threadjacking” when I was talking about the Johnson 2016 donor list, which somebody else brought up, and which is quite relevant to the subject of the thread?

  13. Andy

    Shane, I understand that people donate money for a variety of reasons, some of which may not be inline with the stated purpose of the organization, but when people like I mentioned above who have no real interest in tbe Libertarian Party or philosophy, and when somebody calls a bunch of donors off of the Johnson 2016 list, and discovers that a bunch of these people are not libertarians, it should be cause for concern, especially given that their donations were to promote a ticket – Johnson/Weld – that strayed as far from the Libertarian Party’s platform as it did, and went so far as calling Hillary Clinton a “wonderful public servant” (I have never met, or even heard of, a libertarian who had anything good to say about Hillary Clinton, and I have been involved with this stuff for over 21 years)

    If it were just a few non-libertarian donors who donated to a ticket that ran on a reasonably strong libertarian platform, taking that money would not be as big a deal, but a lot of non-libertarians donating to an LP ticket that used its time on the campaign trail to urinate on the LP’s platform to the extent that Johnson/Weld did ought to be a sign that the party is doing a lot of things wrong.

  14. Andy

    I am not suggesting that the Libertarian Party give the money that came from non-libertarians like Christy Walton back. It is water under the bridge now.

    What I am suggesting is that moving forward, the Libertarian Party start running candidates on its presidential ticket again who can reasonably be called libertarians, and that their campaigns be staffed by people who are actually libertarians, who are actually interested in building the Libertarian Party and movement. Start building up a list of donors who are actually interested in liberty, and give them a ticket that is actually libertarian for them to support.

    If a few donations from non-libertarians come in then so be it, but this should not represent a large portion of donor funds, nor should it be an excuse to pervert the party’s message.

  15. steve m

    ah think (probably being more foolish then dangerous)…..

    that the Libertarian Party, an assortment of county, state and national organizations, has a value in its ballot access and activists. the former (may) help(s) people who want to run for office…. the latter in aid, only voluntarily, for running for office.

    at any candidate level…. where the candidate is benefiting from easier ballot access because of the previous work of others, especially activists…. the candidate should acknowledged that early effort and be happy to return aid, especially marketing information back…

    the “party” as represented by the level of national, state or county/city should be negotiating this with all candidates…

    are we? what is the lowest level that this should be done?

  16. Chuck Moulton

    Marc Montoni wrote:

    So when will the campaign’s names/addresses etc be imported into the main LP database, and shared with the state & local parties?

    Never… unless the LNC converts the prospect into a national member first.

    This was all predictable. The Johnson campaign clearly doesn’t care about growing the LP long term, and any delegate with his eyes and ears open knew that long before the nomination. We give the presidential campaign everthing they want (ballot access and advertising to LP members / inquiries), then expect the campaign to give us what we want after the fact. It will never happen unless the presidential candidate actually cares about the LP, which delegates haven’t cared about as a basic qualification the last few years.

    Nick was put in a terrible negotiating position. He did the best he could with what the delegates gave him to work with.

    The actual long term solution to the problem is to require some basic things from a presidential campaign as a qualification for even being nominated. There is a perennial bylaws proposal to address that very issue. Unfortunately, it always overreaches and makes things unnecessarily complicated; therefore, it is very unlikely to pass. This year is no exception.

    Still, I hope to do what I can to make the proposal this year as good as possible. To that end, I would appreciate it if someone would post here or email me possible contract language requiring the presidential campaign to allow prospects fo be shared with state affiliates after election day. That is inot in our current proposal and some of my colleagues scoffed when I suggested its inclusion (see the committee meeting video on Caryn Ann Harlos’s Facebook).

  17. Just Some Random Guy

    My point was that a disturbing number of donations came from people who were clearly not libertarians, and who had no interest in the Libertarian Party or cause, and who only donated because they were hoping to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

    If they were donating because they were hoping to influence the outcome of the presidential election, then how the heck would having a “true” libertarian change their donations? Donating would still achieve the same effect.

  18. Andy

    Did you miss the gushing over Hillary Clinton from Johnson/Weld? Did you also miss how they played “kid gloves” with the political establishment, and did mot bring up anything that was “too radical,” like abolishing the Federal Reserve, or ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing, or withdrawing from the United Nations, etc… Did you miss it when they said they wanted to appoint Mitt Romney as Secratary of State?

    It should be clear that Johnson/Weld were “dog whistling” to the Council on Foreign Relations and to neo-cons and to other establishment types. They were basically saying to the establishment, “Hey, look at us. It is safe for you all to vote for us. You see, we really are like you.”

    Do you think that if an actual libertarian, like say Darryl W. Perry, had been nominated, and had been speaking out against corporate welfare and eminent domain, that he would have been likely to get money from Christy Walton (Wal-Mart is provably the biggest recipient of corporate welfare and eminent domain that there is)? I doubt it.

    It should be obvious to anyone who does mot have their head shoved up their ass as to what was really going on with Johnson/Weld.

Leave a Reply

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