Emailed to [email protected]:
LUTZ, FL. October 26, 2010. The Libertarian Reform Caucus Political Action Committee (LRC PAC) announced today that it is ceasing operations. In addition, LRC PAC further announced that it will donate the balance of its funds to the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) and the Libertarian National Congressional Committee (LNCC).
The LRC PAC committee stated: “Our goal has always been to reform the Libertarian Party (LP) to liberalize what it means to be a Libertarian and to create a ‘big tent’ national political party of like-minded liberty lovers. Our PAC was established to fund operations toward that end. While the LP will and should continue to evolve, we believe we have been successful in making adjustments to the LP’s foundational documents and intra-party relations, which we believe have been sufficiently altered to allow the LP to begin a period of growth and effectiveness. This country sorely needs a real political party dedicated to advancing the cause of liberty, and we believe the ‘USS LP’ can now begin to take its rightful place as a leading voice for rolling back counter-productive and destructive government policies.”
LRC PAC has transferred over $800 each to the LNC and LNCC and has filed with the Federal Elections Committee to terminate itself as a federal political action committee.
—-
Robert Capozzi, LRC PAC Chair
Steven Burden, LRC PAC Treasurer
They used to have a webpage, and it is my understanding that Ms. Mattson is working on a new and presumably better one. However, I too would have preferred if they had left the old one up in the meantime, or at least allowed it to be indexed by archive.org.
Wouldn’t it be nice if they had a web page so LP members could understand too and be excited about giving, including over $1000. I don’t think the Demopublicans hide info about their PACs from potential donors, not if they are smart anyway.
Not to my knowledge. If you cut them a check, they would probably take it.
However, they won’t spend any time or money asking you for money.
And if that check you cut them is for less than $1k, you don’t get a vote on their policies. Nor do they have any responsibility to you as a non-member of the LNCC.
At least, that is how I understand it.
Paulie: “LNCC membership starts at $1,000.” You mean they REF– USE money from libertarians. ACK!
I didn’t see any LNCC fundraising letters
My understanding is that they generally fundraise from LNCC members, not from LP members in general, and that LNCC membership starts at $1,000.
fyi, While the 274 comments do include some that were on topic, most were not. And I was at least as guilty of that as anyone else.
Thanks Paulie, you’re so fast didn’t check replies.
Oh, look what I found posted even before this thread. with 274 comments yet. That will take a long time to analyze and parse.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/10/libertarian-national-congressional-committee-announces-contributions-to-lp-candidates-nationally/
OK, searched a bit more and found this October 5th announcement so at least we know who he is supporting and we can see how many of them support him in 2012. Now just have to get money amounts. (I didn’t see any LNCC fundraising letters coming to the two people at my house who get LP stuff. Did I miss something?)
Try this:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/10/libertarian-national-congressional-committee-announces-contributions-to-lp-candidates-nationally/
#23 “Carol Moore, and other opponents of Wayne Root or any other potential LP Presidential nominee: Try being positive.”
When someone takes charge of a major Fundraising Committee like LNCC, doubtless promising to raise money for libertarian candidates, and barely mentions the committee, except as a way of promoting himself for TV appearances where he announces he PLANS to be the LP candidate in 2012, I think we are dealing with a major con artist whose fraud must be exposed. Unless you have links to some thing where he talks about these details? I haven’t been able to find any.
I agree that you need orderly disunion of the large nation states, preferably through nonviolent secession of those voluntarily seceding, even as centralized national governments, finding their taxation and other proceeds shrinking into nothing, find it best to begin an order and peaceful and libertarian/just process of dispossession of their assets (esp. land which can be both homesteaded out and/or sold to create pension plans for the elderly poor) and recycling their nationalist swords into plowshares. Of course a leap to a higher consciousness than the current macho male dominance let’s having pissing contests twenty-four seven would be helpful!
more to BR…
And, no, I see no evidence that “People hunger for a message of pure liberty….” I see LOTS of evidence that people hunger for peace. Or, perhaps, you’re playing a word game…if 2 people “hunger” for a message of pure liberty, then your statement is true. Aren’t you the clever one!
“Smashing the State” doesn’t seem peaceful to me, and I seriously see NO evidence that many people desire the State to be smashed. There are a few thousand abolitionist Ls who do, and that’s about it. Most recognize that that’d be contra-indicated, i.e., highly risky, highly likely to lead to nihilistic chaos.
br32, I’m glad we agree that “purity” is subjective. But, then, you turn around and say “And that is why the LP platform must be pure….” Let’s examine the word “must”. Do you mean to say it is an absolute imperative that it be “pure”? How can you possibly make such a statement? OR, do you simply mean it’s your OPINION that such purity is imperative?
That we can work with.
As for me, I appoint myself the Pope of Liberty and I bless the current platform as pure! The 1976-2004 platforms were ex parte meetings of the Cardinals of the House of Ayn Rand, but I, your Pope, have come back to Show all Sinners the Way, Truth and Light. 😉
As for Rothbard, no, not obsessed, but thanks for your concern. It’s simply my opinion that he embedded his peculiar brand of deontological absolutism in the L thought stream, and IMO that stuff is poisonous, i.e., counter productive.
Personally, I’d prefer to see Ls take a more Taoist approach, i.e., flow toward virtue, bend like a reed in the wind for dysfunction. Such an approach is far more practical, since we know that virtue and dysfunction are subjective. Codifying such things by establishing specific theoretical constructs is crazymaking.
My operative premise is that’s a good reason why MNR was such an angry, cantankerous critic of just about everything…a classic personality disorder.
Yes, RC, purity is in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty.
And that is the beauty of the pure message of Individual Liberty – because it is logically consistent, innocent, clean and clear – it is unsullied by the perversity of politics.
And that is why the LP platform must be pure – it must rise above the muck and morass of the morally corrupt monster parties. Our principles do not depend on opportunistic appeals for popularity, support, money or power. We do stand for an ideal, an ideal that shines through the ages.
Of course, we should use the best possible prose, correct spelling and grammar, and we should not seek to offend or shock with inappropriate language. But we should never shy away from the pure logic and the sound principles of individual liberty.
People hunger for a message of pure liberty, and they will eventually flock to us – if we maintain our principles and prove that we truly mean what we say. We must never seek short term gains at the cost of long-term victory and that is what you are advocating.
Our candidates, of course, are running in a world of politics. They must adapt their own positions to what is possible within the length of their terms of office and possible reelection periods. They are free to offer partial solutions and modest changes that move us step by step toward liberty.
But our Libertarian Platform must be our guide post. It must remain pure and absolute. It is what draws our activists and dedicated volunteers and donors to us.
You seem to be obsessed with Murray Rothbard and attack him with the vehemence of a deserted lover – and I hope you will eventually recover from your loss. Perhaps when you have recovered you will realize that your earlier self may have been ahead of your presently disaffected self. Wisdom is not an automatic benefit of aging. It can be lost as well as gained.
And there is no way we will achieve our goals by wasting time looking for magic solutions: watering down the platform, looking for famous outsiders, infighting for control … none of these will lead to victory. The question for each of us is: how hard are you working to get the message out to the people – are you campaigning, handing out fliers, going door to door, working at fair booths; are you writing letters to the editor or articles for publication that will be seen by new prospects; did you donate enough to put our message on TV and radio this year; are you donating the maximum amount your means would allow, to the party and candidates to spread our message?
As to getting “a seat at the table,” that is not a goal worth obtaining. We do not want a seat at the table to assist or help direct the evil fascist-socialist state. We want to smash the state. That must remain our goal.
For minarchists and anarchists alike, there can be no compromise on our Principles. We demand no less than pure, total, individual liberty. We do not have to agree exactly, but only generally on what that is in order to obtain our goal.
We must reform the reforms. Restore a pure Platform as our guidepost and get busy: working, recruiting, teaching, campaigning, donating, running for office, party building, writing and spreading our message of liberty.
We can win with a pure platform of principle. Indeed, we cannot possibly win without it.
be: It is likely that we have lost more votes from NOT maintaining a pure party platform than any we’ll gain by watering it down.
me: This, of course, is speculation on your part. What is “pure” and what is not “pure” are functions of personal interpretation. You, for ex., might consider the old language about not regulating any weapons no matter how dangerous was “pure.” I don’t. I think it was crazy talk. In that case, the LP in convention arrived at the same conclusion that I did.
“Purity,” like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
And, yes, in a sense, all us former fetuses were formerly parasites. That a man wrote a manifesto trying to convince others of his ideas chose to frame the issue that way calls into question his judgment, at least for me, and I suspect for most. In a sense, I’m glad he did, for — on reflection — it helped me understand that MNR was not right in the head, and that was the clue he left for us all to examine. His deontological absolutist construct has a certain internal consistency, but when examined through a broader lens, I can see why his ideas have been largely restricted to a small cadre of true believers, of which I once bought into. His ideas don’t, IMO, work. Politics is the art of the possible, of building coalitions of generally like-minded people advancing a set of ideas. While MNR’s strategic hero Lenin was able to maintain a plumbline, “korrect line,” personality cult to grab control of Russia, I don’t believe that’s a sustainable model for change in the US or the western world, where a sense of pluralism and a respect for diversity of thought is a vital element in civil discourse and social change. Without that sense of pluralism and acceptance, we won’t get a seat at the table.
Scientifically, RC, fetuses are parasites; and babies by the millions are bought and sold in courtrooms across the US today as required by the D and R parties, in custody cases.
If you want to argue, that the use of certain words and phrases, the way a principle is phrased and presented, will affect how it is perceived, and that certain language tends to rasie hackles and annoy so that its use is “contraindicated,” then I will agree with you.
We should write our platform with good English, utilizing articulate, clear language that is non-offensive in the words, expressions and style of presentation chosen. However, we should not abandon our principles in the process.
It is likely that we have lost more votes from NOT maintaining a pure party platform than any we’ll gain by watering it down.
A weak, meaningless platform, or worse, one that no longer represents pure libertarian principle will drive away donors, supporters, and key activists who provide the money and volunteer hours needed to build a real party and run campaigns.
On the other hand, the number of voters who actually read the various party platforms and make decisions based on those platforms is probably the second smallest political group in the US, eclipsing only the Milness machine.
be rational: The platform needs to be a shining star, a beacon of pure Liberty in the mold of the late Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty.” The LP does not lose elections based on its platform any more than the D and R parties do. What counts is the personal attributes and fundraising ability of each candidate.
me: I agree that the LP doesn’t lose elections because of the platform. It does lose votes, however, when people are aware of some of the excesses and highly theoretical aspects of the old platform are known, or when candidates mouth those excesses. Supporters also are less likely to support quixotic efforts when those efforts involve overt self-sabotage.
As you are a fan of FOR A NEW LIBERTY, we could as a party include, for ex., MNR’s “brilliant” and “pure” ideas about how fetuses are parasites and birth parent should legally be entitled to sell their babies. To my mind, those sorts of theoretical and bracing views amount to self-sabotage.
Apparently you see it differently.
It does take all kinds.
ty, the Reform Caucus has not ceased operations, the LRC PAC did. The PAC was founded as a means to advance the Reform Caucus agenda, which is to broaden the LP to include Ls (and non-party-member Ls) from various schools of thought. The PAC didn’t support Barr or Root or any candidate; it mostly funded efforts in Denver, which mostly involved resuscitating and repopulating the platform with planks that had been deleted in Portland.
Since the PAC was a volunteer and largely dormant organization, we had funds left over from the Denver effort, which I personally believe were largely successful. The PAC considered a few options, but we thought it best to distribute the funds to the LNC and LNCC, as they are active organizations, although not necessarily “reform-minded.” Despite reports to the contrary, the LRC members came from a variety of schools of thought within the LP: constitutionalists, minarchists, anarchists and lessarchists.
The Caucus itself could be viewed as dormant. Since we don’t support internal LP candidates for the LNC or for nomination, there has not been anything for us to rally about. Personally, I’d like to fix the SoP and ByLaws, but attempts to do so have thus far failed, due to nearly insurmountable procedural obstacles. All in good time. Patience is, after all, a virtue.
tb: I’m reforming all political parties by simply not being a member of any.
me: How very Taoist of you, Tom! If you can’t flow with something, allow it to flow by!
Wait, hold on. Did the Reform Caucus cease because they gave up or did they accomplish their goals and had no more point in existing? Hearing from the reaction to the nomination of Bob Barr and W.A.R. it would seem like the Reform Caucus was in control.
I don’t think it’s realistic to plan a convention and know who will or will not run. I support having the convention in Dallas, and I hope John Jay Myers runs for the nomination, but that’s not why I want it in Dallas.
If it’s in Vegas, I really don’t think Wayne will get that much of an advantage. How many people can he realistically turn out there who would not be willing to travel? And I mean realistically.
If we scratch Vegas only because Wayne lives there, the same logic will be used to scratch Dallas, and who’s to say other candidates won’t emerge from whatever town it is planned to be in?
What do you do then, keep switching it around every time a new candidate announces?
Honestly…if it’s in Vegas it is not the end of the world, although it is not my first choice.
Be rational @ 23: Suggesting that having the convention in a candidate’s home town is inappropriate is hardly Wayne bashing. I actually don’t concern myself with him much, and I’ll continue to nurture a few individuals that I think would be a better candidate. I’ll continue to work on building a Libertarian party that can present candidates who further the cause of liberty in this country.
further the cause of liberty.
23 good point
Carol Moore, and other opponents of Wayne Root or any other potential LP Presidential nominee:
Try taking the positive approach.
You don’t like Wayne Root, and he’s not libertarian enough for you. Fine. So get out there and find, build up, support and promote a better candidate for the LP Presidential nomination. Build a campaign organization that’s ready for a serious, nationwide, major LP campaign. If you can come in with the best candidate with the best organization, he or she can take the nomination.
If you spend your time attacking one possible LP nominee, and come in with no better alternative nominee, then that beat up and abused individual you wasted your time ravaging will still be the best choice and he or she will still win the nomination.
Thanks for info on real statistics. I figured posting anything might evoke them 🙂
Re: Mr Rationals comment “personal political plans for the future that they hope to advance at the same time may help motivate their actions and increase their committment to the cause, but that is not a bad thing. ” Plans are one thing. Using one’s official position to influence fundraising for future supporters, grab fundraising lists, get the LPCon in your city so you can pack the delegate list, etc. are all issues of concern. By the way, if Wayne is a Born Again Christian – as he’s said on Fox News and on this Site – how come he supports himself through and promotes GAMBLING? No Comprendo. Sure he’ll get that question a lot on the campaign trail.
And I am willing to be fairly broad-minded on this. After all, LfA is not affiliated with the libertarian Party, but we only support Libertarians.
@18 I will take PACs that routinely support Libertarian Party candidates, and people who are our members running in non-partisan races or the like, as opposed to PACs that say they are libertarian but support Democrats or Heaven forfend Republicans.
The Republican Libertarian Caucus I would not count. Ditto the Democratic Freedom Caucus, though they did one really positive thing…Nolan charts plotting all of the Senate.
As to the LP and the Platform. Perhaps we can now reform the reforms and make the LP platform a hard hitting, pure Libertarian document again. The platform needs to be a shining star, a beacon of pure Liberty in the mold of the late Murray Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty.”
The LP does not lose elections based on its platform any more than the D and R parties do. What counts is the personal attributes and fundraising ability of each candidate.
The LP can win with a hard hitting, pure Libertarian platform in single member, plurality districts. We should keep our platform pure. We should stop wasting time trying to change the electoral system, other than to ease restrictions of access to the ballot.
When the LP runs its best people, and when LP members and donors actually focus on winning elections – then we can win. This positive approach is what is needed in the future.
When we finally get serious, we will find that we can win; and by doing so, we will displace one of the other two big parties. Since the Republican Party has become the biggest obstacle to restoring Liberty to America, and given the current disarray within that cesspool of corruption and intolerance, it is likely and desireable that we kill off and replace the big, dying “white elephant” R party.
Also, since you said libertarian and not Libertarian, there are some others, but I am assuming you meant Libertarian.
If you find any libertarian PACs other than teh LNC, the LNCC, and Liberty for America, please let me know; I’d view them as worth tracking.
The Donors Club may or may not be an official PAC, but it functions as one, correct?
@13 If you find any libertarian PACs other than teh LNC, the LNCC, and Liberty for America, please let me know; I’d view them as worth tracking.
If appears that LfA raised about $1000 in support for a Federal campaign in one state. $300 was a targeted donation to pay for direct mail fundraising, and was spent. Will the rest be spent on FaceBook and Adwords ads? The best I can say is more or less–Adwords ad placement rates fluctuate wildly. We can avoid spending more than targeted, but avoiding spending less has been interesting.
@11
Add a zero to each of your numbers and you are close to LNCC’s real spending and individual candidate support donations.
@12 Honestly, I don’t see it as the huge home advantage. Wayne does not have a big hometown following to pack a convention, and logically we would have to apply the same rules to everyone.
We do have one and perhaps more than one candidates from Texas as well (one of the other proposals is for Dallas), so what’s good for the goose…
The other proposal I know of is for San Francisco.
I like Dallas the best out of these ideas.
Presidential candidates may be from anywhere, chances are the top contenders are not yet known if past elections are any guide, and I don’t think convention packing is as easy in practice as people think it is.
Carol Moore,
According to stats posted by George Phillies on another thread, the LNCC gave $7,500 in total to 13 candidates in donations of $500 or $1,000 each.
George Phillies has not supplied similar stats (and to be honest here, I’m too lazy to go look for them) for his own organization or any of the other LP PACS or groups, however, so we can’t compare these amounts to the efforts of other groups. It seems, however, to be a small, but serious, first step toward providing funding for Libertarian candidates, so quite worthwhile.
The fact that some or all of the participants in the LNCC or other donor groups may have personal political plans for the future that they hope to advance at the same time may help motivate their actions and increase their committment to the cause, but that is not a bad thing. We are all motivated by our own personal self interests in the choices we make in life.
Carol, I understand the LNC is actually considering Las Vegas as one of two places for our 2012 convention. In my view, it would give Wayne Allyn Root an unfair advantage to have the convention there. I hope those in charge make the right decisions.
$800! That’s probably half the LNCC’s contributions this year. But that probably won’t stop Wayne Root from asking for support for his PLANNED presidential run on the LP ticket of the 20 odd candidates (hopefully libertarian) he gives $50-75 each to. (See his announcement he PLANS to be the candidate on his Russia Today appearance at 6min 10 secs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIeLgzWDekI )
Can any LNC members spell CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
Does this have anything to do with the lawsuit rumors?
Haven’t heard them. Details?
Where was David Nolan?
Busy running for US Senate in Arizona, last I checked. What do you mean where was he?
Does this have anything to do with the lawsuit rumors? They had a lot to do with putting right-wing kooks into state parties in the LP.
Good riddance, but the LP may never recover from this. Where was David Nolan?
RC – I’m reforming all political parties by simply not being a member of any.
I’m surprised you would say the Dems and GOP are too corrupt. That sounds so extreme – even if everyone knows it is true.
The sad truth is that all political parties are corrupt due to the nature of the political system and the nature of politicians.
pc: …consider it a win.
me: Oh, yes, in my case, I don’t think in terms of “winners and losers.” That’s old-school “either/or” thinking, which I find dysfunctional.
Rather, the platform changes seem helpful in advancing the cause of liberty. The SoP (wild!) overstatements — with 3/4 of the party in convention agreeing they should be deleted — seems not worth the monumental effort required to continue to seek improvement, at least for now. Resisting that seems futile. I’m flowing with it, even if IMO it doesn’t flow.
TB, I`ve looked at the RLC and DFC and I`d say their reformation skills are fine. IMO, the parties they are in are simply too corrupt. We`re all doing what we can. I seem to recall that you`ve quit the LP and BTP in recent years, so your latest path seems to be indicated for you at this time. Hope that`s all working out for you.
Yes, many reformers would like to`ve seen more positive adjustments to the foundational documents, myself included. And, yes of course negotiating involves initial positioning. The platform was substantially rewritten, after all.
IMO, my critique (not nec. the caucus`s) of abolitionist L-ism is that the inital positioning is “on the moon,” too far from the public square to be of consequence.
At this time, the balance of our funds has been shifted to what we believe is a higher and better use to advance the cause of maximizing liberty. IMO, more reforms are indicated; standing still with ideas that seemed sound at the time seems contraindicated, I`d submit. Theory is of no use if it cannot be applied.
Perhaps the Reformers should utilize the reformation skills they have acquired and move on to the Republican and Democratic Parties at this time.
The fact that there are few right-wing Christians in the Democratic Party and few left-wing progressives in the Republican Party indicate the need to enlarge the tents of these organizations.
It may be a case of abolitionist negotiating strategy at work: demand abolition of the pledge and “omnipotent state” terminology in order to achieve simplification of the platform, and consider it a win.
Paulie,
My guess is that the LRC defines “success in making adjustments to the LP’s foundational documents” in the same way that Bob defines political success generally — on the basis of how many times he’s able to get the word “contraindicated” into the record.
we believe we have been successful in making adjustments to the LP’s foundational documents
I thought getting rid of the pledge and changing the statement of principles were also goals?