In 2016, just barely over six months since its formal organization the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus (LPRC) disbursed $2208.71 to radical candidates and endorsed many more. Continuing in this commitment, the LPRC has distributed $1,500 to radical candidates in partisan races for the 2017 elections, split amongst three candidates, for a donation of $500.00 each.
The funded candidates were Dr. Joe Buchman (US House, 3rd District, UT), Brian Shields (State Representative, NH), and Matthew Wallace (Sheriff of Delaware County, PA).
Additionally the LPRC endorsed Jennifer Moore (Upper Providence Township Auditor, PA) and Michael Stapleton (Pueblo City Council, CO). Moore requested that any contribution be given to the 2018 candidate fund, and Stapleton was running in a non-partisan race.
Monies have already been put aside for the funds to support 2018 candidates.
Although formally organized in 2016, the LPRC was formed in 2006 by a core group of dedicated activists whose mission was to ensure the Libertarian Party remains true to its ideological foundation. At the core of the LPRC’s ideals is the Statement of Principles, authored by LP Founding Member and first Presidential Candidate, Dr. John Hospers, during the 1972 Libertarian National Convention and amended as part of the Dallas Accord at the 1974 Libertarian National Convention. The LPRC was active during the 2016 National Convention and continues on its mission of re-radicalizing the Party and further to promote a clear, radical vision of libertarianism through education and electoral advocacy both within the LP and outside of it.
For more information visit the LPRC website at http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org and to join visit http://www.lpradicalcaucus.org/join. To ask questions and determine if the LPRC is a good fit for you, join their radical and radical-curious Facebook group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/2497146127/.
Further inquiries may be directed to board@lpradicalcaucus.org.
Chuck’s comments made it to the LNC list, with extended commentary by Starchild:
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/010461.html
“Chuck Moulton
October 4, 2017 at 14:13”
“I hope eventually the LNC grows a backbone and stops throwing money down the drain for the next in a long line of “oh my God, I’m going to win if you shower me with cash!” candidates. Any campaign worth its salt can fundraise for itself — to a national audience if it wants. National should be spending its time and money on national things, such as presidential ballot access, lawsuits, conventions, and infrastructure with economies of scale (databases, websites, social media, etc.) to help state affiliates, not arguing about how to siphon a small pie of money to rent seeking candidates.”
This I agree with 100%.
I believe the process is that state parties submit their lists of candidates. You can check with HQ directly in case I am wrong. I agree it’s a good idea to let candidates submit/correct their info directly, but HQ would probably want to check with the state party (to make sure it is a candidate they want to be associated with) as well as to make sure that the person communicating with them is the candidate and not a prankster.
I’ll look into it, thanks.
Those with an interest in the Matthew Wallace for Sheriff campaign can do an internet search and find some videos, a campaign web site, a Facebook campaign page and other coverage. Woot woot!
Considering he has a website, I’m surprised it isn’t listed on the Candidates page for the Libertarian Party’s site (https://www.lp.org/2017-candidates/). Maybe he didn’t submit it or something (I have no idea what the procedure for getting yourself listed there, or having a website listed), but when looking for candidates to try to support on that page, I tend to disregard anyone who doesn’t have a website, figuring that if you don’t have a website you’re probably not serious. Having a linked website there could have people who are perusing the candidate list take better note of him. There’s certainly no reason to not provide it there.
If you disagree, propose an operational test that would let us determine whether a party has ballot access in a state.
“The LNCs most important role is to assist in 50 state ballot access”
There is reasonable evidence that the LNC has no idea what they mean by “ballot access”. The term should be discontinued.
Caryn Ann Harlos wrote (10/4/2017 at 6:41 pm):
If I presented you a with trophy and framed certificate, would you post a picture of them on your LPedia page? I’ve been fiddling around on a custom trophy design website for the last 15 minutes and I think I’ve designed the perfect award for LNC pork barrel spending. I could make the presentation during your regional caucus to help you win their votes.
I had the pleasure of sitting next to Joe Buchman at the Orlando convention.. I’m happy the LPRC is helping fund his campaign.
And, as usual, Chuck Moulton provides the voice of reason here.
The LNCs most important role is to assist in 50 state ballot access.. not fund candidates. Even in “winnable” elections
I’ll commit to posting as many per day on average as everyone else put together. It would be nice if someone or a combination of people could do 5-6 a day and I’ll do the same. Not interested in doing 90% of it myself again.
We simply disagree on what is a pertinent investment. My predecessor felt the same about ballot access funds. I do not.
I’m sure every member of congress is serving their district with all of their pork barrel spending, but that doesn’t make it good government, good policy, or libertarian. I side more with Jeff Flake on earmarks than with Ron Paul. The economic consequences of such policies are plain — both in government and in the LP.
It seems the IPR open thread is a better place, but hey, bumping the LPRC article is good as well.
No I don’t think it is unlibertarian, and I think I am serving my region. I know you however view it as an insult, and I get weary of how easily we all insult each other. I guess its better than “pinkslime” which is a new one.
If IPR would post more articles, perhaps I could have found a more appropriate place to comment.
As it is now, this article is titled “Libertarian Party Radical Caucus Endorses and Funds Candidates for Second Year in a Row”. Thus, this is about funding LP candidates. And in fact, it presents an alternative (and much better) way to fund candidates than the LNC.
Maybe you are coming around… you seemed to view “queen of pork” as a badge of honor earlier today, though it was in fact intended to shame you from such unlibertarian behavior.
Each day I remember why I dislike politics intensely. I am going to document all the names I have been called on my LPedia page.
But what does this have to do with the LPRC?
Joe,
I donated to your campaign and I think you’ve done a great job in your race, but it should not be the job of the LNC to fund non-presidential candidates. It’s a textbook example of rent seeking: both the candidates and the LNC waste an enormous amount of time and money lobbying for a piece of the pie.
The advertising benefits of your campaign are similar to the benefits of giving to candidates all around the country, so it is not an argument for the LNC subsidizing your campaign over any other campaign. Given that we have limited resources, the LNC can’t fund every candidate. Candidates therefore need to compete for funds. If we have 50 candidates running for Congress and they each invest 2 hours lobbying the LNC and only one of them gets funded, then that is 98 hours completely wasted and 2 hours spent reallocating a resource rather than growing the pie. An optimal strategy for candidates would be to waste practically all of their time and money to get the benefit… if there is a $5000 subsidy, then a profit maximizing candidate should spend $4999 lobbying to secure it. That’s just stupid. What’s more, the LNC wastes countless hours evaluating candidates which coupd be spent doing the actual business of the board.
I sent an email to the LNC about this. If it gets posted to the LNC list, I will link it here. My proposal is simple: pick an amount for all candidate support, then allocate the money through a random number generator to eliminate all of the rent seeking waste from lobbying and decision making.
Anyway, I don’t doubt that the queen of pork has constituents in her district grateful for her efforts. Alaska senator Ted Stevens’ constituents were similarly grateful for the bridge to nowhere. We’re libertarians, and we should do better.
Chuck,
I got blowback for NOT saying “Gee shower me with cash, I’m going to win!” – I DID say my goal was to get into the debates.
I’ve been in four so far – first with the three Republicans vying for the primary in July, second with all seven of the other candidates in August, third with four of the other candidates in September, and number four coming up next week with three of the other candidates.
See: https://betterutah.org/cd3debate
The funding that came from both the LNC and LRC thanks to Caryn Ann’s advocating for the value to the party she saw in funding these activities has helped make that possible, and is getting the word LIBERTARIAN out there in various media –
http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/10/02/congressional-hopeful-john-curtis-deletes-facebook-post-that-explained-build-the-wall-campaign-ads/
and here
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865690274/Mitt-Romney-endorses-John-Curtis-in-3rd-Congressional-District-race.html
Not sure how “national” activity happens if it’s not market-by-market.
Especially when these “local” stories get repeated nationally, as in this example from New York:
http://www.weny.com/story/36521009/mitt-romney-endorses-john-curtis-in-3rd-congressional-district-race
Meanwhile, on the LNC the queen of pork is requesting more pork for her district.
http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business_hq.lp.org/2017/010435.html
I hope eventually the LNC grows a backbone and stops throwing money down the drain for the next in a long line of “oh my God, I’m going to win if you shower me with cash!” candidates. Any campaign worth its salt can fundraise for itself — to a national audience if it wants. National should be spending its time and money on national things, such as presidential ballot access, lawsuits, conventions, and infrastructure with economies of scale (databases, websites, social media, etc.) to help state affiliates, not arguing about how to siphon a small pie of money to rent seeking candidates.
Kudos.
A caucus that funds candidates is my kind of caucus.
Very glad to give him a control button.
Us radicals not helping again.
Those with an interest in the Matthew Wallace for Sheriff campaign can do an internet search and find some videos, a campaign web site, a Facebook campaign page and other coverage. Woot woot!
https://www.google.com/search?q=Matthew+Wallace+Sheriff+of+Delaware+County