The Libertarian National Committee is meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada for a one day meeting today only. I am doing my best to cover the meeting. Internet is limited so no video is available and no one is taping as far as I can see. I may or may not be able to stay connected this way. If it dies, if someone is interested in helping continue coverage can text me at 415-690-6352 (I will not be taking voice calls during the meeting. However if you do not text you can leave me a voicemail; texts better than voicemails).
Meeting convened at 8 am. After some relatively minor wrangling over the agenda (compared with some past meetings) we had executive session to review the proposed contract with new Executive Director Wes Benedict. After coming out of the secret meeting (as Starchild calls it) Wes’s contract was approved by 15-2. He will be coming back as ED on Aug 1st. Bill Redpath is not here. Tony Ryan is in for Norm Olsen. Otherwise all regular LNC members are here as well as alternates Lieberman, Spencer and myself (Frankel). I will note gallery members present in comments. The two no votes were Starchild and Pojunis, however they both noted they have nothing against Wes. Stachild’s no vote was due to lack of an open hiring process and possibly some other objections to details of the contract which as far as I know we are not allowed to discuss. Pojunis did not say exactly but my understanding is that the no vote was based on some details of the contract.
Carla Howell is staying on as Political Director. Next was a vote on amending the budget to allow this. It passed 13 y, 2 abstentions (Starchild and Kirkland). Pojunis and Cloud were out of the room so did not vote. Further updates will be in comments,
This video that I posted above did not work for some reason, so I’m posting it again.
BillyRock at Mises University
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EC6kKNISQ
Paulie said: “Not counting opportunity cost, each of those trips has cost me somewhere around a grand; I’ve received some contributions to offset part of that, which I appreciate, but I’m still paying most of it, and I can’t afford it. A big reason why many otherwise qualified people don’t run for LNC, or quit if they haven’t fully thought it through before they run and win. In my case I was already aware of this, so it wasn’t a surprise, but I can’t afford another term.”
You are only an LNC Region Alternate Representative. You can’t even do anything at the meetings unless your region rep does not show up or decided to sit out at a meeting for some reason. Your region rep was their, so there was really no reason for you to be at the meeting. There is no reason for you to go to any LNC meeting if your regular region rep is going to be there. It appears to me that you go to the meetings because you enjoy going (although the meetings themselves are generally about as fun as watching paint dry). So you are generally taking this expense on not because you NEED to go to the meetings, because you only need to go if your region rep is not going to be there, you have taken on this expense mostly just because you like going to the meetings.
If you only attended the meetings where your region rep was not going to be there, and perhaps ones that are close to where you happen to be anyway, you would not spend nearly as much money on these things.
You could stay on as a region alternate rep (assuming you could get re-elected) and save money by just not attending as many of the meeting as you have during this term.
“Jill Pyeatt // Jul 17, 2013 at 7:27 pm
I haven’t heard much about Freedom Fest. How did that go?”
I only walked around the booths at Freedom Fest, so I don’t really know. I did hear from multiple people that this was the lamest Freedom Fest since the event started back in 2006. Complaints that I heard was that the main speaker list was too Republican and that the mock trial that they staged as to whether or not the Republican Party was a suitable vehicle for liberty only contained Republicans on both sides of the debate.
I heard that Doug Casey was in attendance but unfortunately I did not see him. It would have been cool to meet Doug Casey as I’ve been a fan of his for quite a few years.
BillyRock at Mises University
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EC6kKNISQ&feature=c4-overview&playnext=1&list=TLZApwPBYahZ0
I haven’t heard much about Freedom Fest. How did that go?
Here is Amanda BillyRock’s website:
http://amandabillyrock.com/
I should add that she’s an anarcho-capitalist libertarian.
I attended the LNC meeting this past weekend as well as the last day and half of Freedom Fest. The highlight of the weekend for me was getting to meet Amanda BillyRock while walking around in the booth area toward the end of Freedom Fest. She seemed like a cool chick. For those of you who don’t know who she is, she’s a libertarian who puts out videos on YouTube. Here’s one of them:
Why I am in Love with Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJjt72zRoOw
71 jw quoting FAH: …the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution.
me: The operative word here is “favors.” HOW such a party organizes itself is open to many formulations, as I read Hayek. He implies nothing in particular between, for ex., a more top-down or bottom-up approach for a party dedicating to advancing growth and spontaneous evolution.
Personally, I happen to treasure spontaneity in pretty much all social interactions, but that is less about the form and more about the content of the players involved. Rigid, ossified thinking can show up with a bottom-up as much as a top-down organizational structure, for ex. Mobs ain’t necessarily creative, yes?
This is not a comment on those you criticize, one way or the other. Your side of the state of play is valid, but whether it’s insightful for others, or most, of the L constituency, I can’t say.
But I do personally agree with you about rigid thinking generally, if not specifically.
Jake Witmer @71 – You lump the entire LNC and Libertarian Party together, but you must realize probably not even many of the people on the LNC, including myself, have the information we would need in order to do anything about the serious issues you raise. Most LP members, I presume, are not aware of this stuff at all, let alone have anything to do with it.
What do you think should be done? If you were on the Libertarian National Committee as I am, what would you do to resolve these matters?
Raising issues here is better than not raising them, if the allegations are true as alleged, but coming to an LNC meeting and raising these issues during public comment, bringing along evidence to back up what you say, would probably be a lot more effective.
I’ve heard complaints about Bill Redpath from petitioners, but often it is very far from clear what I as an LNC member not having first-hand knowledge or verifiable details am supposed to do about it. There’s not much that can really be done with anecdotal reports of the he-said, she-said variety.
LP = worthless; malevolent; stupid. AZ LP = less than worthless; malevolent; stupid. LNC = circle jerk of rank incompetents and liars.
Where is “the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution”? In the USA such a party doesn’t exist.
As Hayek wrote: In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use “liberal” in the sense in which I have used it, the term “libertarian” has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much
the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which
describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.”
Of course, the Libertarian Party isn’t libertarian. It could be, but it’s not. It’s a place to waste the time, energy, and efforts of people who think like Hayek.
The LP, if it looks like the LNC, promises to elect a government more opaque and obfuscatory than the Obama regime. It’s almost for the best that their candidates are typically delusional (and encouraged to be delusional by the national “leadership”). In that regard, it’s a very good thing to take a look at this video, which compares leaderless resistance to “top-down,” centralized authority (Bill Redpath). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DxvBjevpGg Top-down, centralized authority is subject to infiltration and corruption (intentional or otherwise).
The Libertarian Joke/Party knows all about the Arizona immigration issue. One of Bill Redpath’s favorite “Libertarian” petitioners, Eric Dondero, recently hired and ran an agent provocateur ring in Maricopa County, AZ. His hired agents provocateurs, one of whom was Darryl Bonner –the mercenary petitioner responsible for the 2012 PA LP debacle– created public disturbances on public library grounds where petitioning was tolerated, in order to get ALL petitioners banned from the library grounds. (The petitioners that Dondero and Bonner were “blocking” were circulating the Joe Arpaio recall petition. Joe Arpaio is a fascist big-R “Republican” sheriff from Maricopa County, AZ. Because Dondero loves the mainstream Republican Party, he went to work for Joe Arpaio, even though Arpaio is famous for cracking down on “illegal immigrants” and prostitutes. Dondero has previously defended open immigration and prostitution, until his party, the Republican Party, paid him to do a direct 180 degree reversal of those positions.)
So, all the AZ LP donors to the LP have paid to disenfranchise themselves and “their” party, using Bill Redpath’s favorite petitioner! (After all, they need access to the public libraries to gather voter registrations, and petition signatures, in order to run candidates. So, Bill Redpath continues to employ the two guys who were driving a stake through the AZ LP’s heart and lifeblood.)
…They’ve also paid to interfere with the Democratic process, not just for the “controlled opposition” Joke they belong to, but for all access to ANY ballot, (ie: even for pro-freedom initiatives). But hey, militarist anti-liberty praetorian petitioners like Dondero and Bonner need your money, chumps! …Meanwhile, I’m “banned” from working in AZ, even while my LP voter-registration work in Flagstaff was anonymously credited –at their State Convention– with keeping them on the ballot, while other AZ LP counties –via the state LP– blew money hiring mercenaries whose “work” falls right off the ballot. …So you chumps can keep paying to run in circles, instead of building the LP!
LP = controlled opposition. It can’t replicate its own institutional successes, because it has no idea how they happened. As far as “National” was concerned, the 8 State Legislators the LP elected were all accidental. But the people at the local level know it was a very specific kind of hard work. Yet, if you talk about anything as constructive as that at a LP LNC meeting, you will be “blacklisted” by the guys (federal government employees?) who run the LP.
Go ahead, keep ignoring the twisted reflection, you’re just another corrupt-to-the-core political party.
The way you prevent this from being fraud is by going back to the donors and telling them the plan has changed and asking if they are ok or would they like their money back.
This is the hard way. Ignoring or rationalizing the discrepancy is the easy way.
Is that something we are allowed to do? I have been told no.
Not sure if I got to this part but what LNC voted was to allow the EC to raise and spend up to 15k matching AZLP for either the referendum or a court case against the new law.
Some Arizona Republican Legislators Admit They Passed Election Restriction to Keep Libertarians Off Ballot
June 19th, 2013 · written by Krzysztof Lesiak · 9 Comments
From Ballot Access News, June 19th:
The East Valley Tribune, which covers the eastern Phoenix suburbs, has this article about HB 2305, an election law bill sitting on the Governor’s desk which makes it very difficult for members of small qualified parties to get on their own party primary ballots. The reporter quotes several Republican legislators as saying that they wrote the bill that way because they are upset that Libertarian candidates last year were on the general election ballot in certain races. Such quotations are likely to be relevant to any lawsuit against the measure, if the Governor signs it into law.
Similar remarks were made earlier this year by Montana legislators, when they passed a top-two measure and arranged for the voters to vote on it in 2014. Montana Republican legislators openly said they are tired of having Libertarians on the ballot.
An excerpt from the linked article, by Howard Fischer and published on eastvalleytribune.com:
Contending one and maybe two congressional races were stolen from them, Republican legislators have approved a measure to finesse election laws to keep out the Libertarians who they say are taking votes from their candidates.
The change, tucked into a much larger set of revisions to election laws, would sharply increase the number of signatures that Libertarian and Green Party candidates need just to get on the ballot for their own legislative and congressional primaries.
Barry Hess, the Libertarian Party’s former candidate for governor, said in most cases the number of signatures required is far more than the number of people actually registered in most districts. He said unless these minor parties could find independents willing to help them get on the ballot, it would create an “insurmountable obstacle” to any minor party candidate getting nominated, much less being on the general election ballot.
But Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, admitted publicly that’s precisely the purpose of the change. And the real goal is creating an easier path for GOP candidates to win.
Mesnard, in a late-night bid on the House floor last week on to corral necessary votes for the change, argued that people try to “manipulate the outcome of elections by putting third-party candidates on the ballot.”
“All they have to do right now is get a dozen or 15 signatures and on the ballot they go,” Mesnard said, saying he was aiming his comments at the Republicans who control the Legislature. And he claimed that at least one congressional race and maybe two did not go “in the direction I would have liked to have seen them go” — and would have gone, Mesnard contends, had this law been in place last year.
In CD 1, Republican Jonathan Paton fell short in his bid to oust incumbent Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick. Paton garnered 113,594 votes against 122,774 for Kirkpatrick.
But Libertarian Kim Allen picked up 15,227 votes — votes that Mesnard contended likely would have gone to Paton to help him win.
Similarly, in the newly created CD 9, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema bested Republican Vernon Parker by 10,251 votes, with Libertarian Powell Gammill tallying 16,620.
Mesnard said upping the signature requirements for minor parties makes these races “much less vulnerable to sham candidates and manipulation.”
To read the full article, please go to the following link:
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_19f25110-d862-11e2-b47a-001a4bcf887a.html
Arizona Omnibus Election Law Bill May Face a Referendum
June 25th, 2013 · written by Krzysztof Lesiak · No Comments
From Ballot Access News, on June 25, 2013:
As noted earlier, an omnibus election law bill was signed by Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer last week. The bill, HB 2305, contains the provision that vastly increases the difficulty for members of minor parties to get on their own party’s primary ballot. The bill has many other provisions which are strongly opposed by the Democratic Party and by various voting rights organizations.
If opponents of the bill can obtain 86,405 valid signatures on a referendum petition by September 11, 2013 (90 days after the adjournment of the legislature), then the bill can’t go into effect until after the voters vote on it. That vote would be on November 4, 2013. It is somewhat likely that opponents of the bill will launch a referendum petition. The Arizona referendum procedure, requiring signatures of 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, is easier than the state’s initiative petition requirement. Initiatives require 10% of the last gubernatorial vote for a statute, and 15% for a state constitutional amendment.
From Ballot Access News, July 2, 2013:
On July 1, opponents of Arizona’s HB 2305 filed paperwork to start circulating a referendum petition. If the petition gets 86,405 valid signatures by September 12, 2013, it cannot go into effect until the voters vote on it. HB 2305 is opposed by Arizona’s three ballot-qualified minor parties because it makes it much more difficult for a member of those parties to get on a primary ballot, and also to be nominated by write-in at their own party’s primary. The bill is opposed by Democrats and organizations of Hispanic voters because it makes it illegal for them to collect voted absentee ballots and turn them in to election officials. It also toughens procedural rules for initiative petitions, and makes it more difficult for voters to remain on the permanent list of absentee voters.
Tom I am done nitpicking that one for right now.
I want to explain the AZ thing for a bit.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/07/opponents-of-arizona-hb-2305-file-paperwork-to-begin-collecting-signatures-on-referendum-petition/
I’ll go fech the text.
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2013/07/opponents-of-arizona-hb-2305-file-paperwork-to-begin-collecting-signatures-on-referendum-petition/
Paulie @ 58,
“neither you nor Tom have shown that any deception was deliberate. There are such things as making mstakes. … It may have been written before that ediscrepancy was discovered”
You are using the wrong tense.
The money was raised on the claim that it would be used to buy a building.
Now, the LNC is debating, or may have even moved to, the purchase of something other than a building.
May there was a mistake, “before the discrepancy was discovered.” But the mistake discrepancy has been pointed out, and the question, in the present, not past, tense is whether the LNC is going to do what it said it was going to do with the money (buy a building, i.e. honesty) or do something else (buy a small piece of a building, i.e. fraud).
“What is the percentage of voters needed?
Which voters may sign?
That is, if I am running in AZ for Congress as a Libertarian, which voters may sign my nominating papers?”
Under the new law only independents and those registred with a party maysign but the number of signatures is calculated as a percentage of ALL registered voters, as opposed to wha happened earlier, when it was that same percentage of those registered with that party. So for example if you need 1% of all voters that is far diffrent from 1% of all registered LP voters but in either case only independens and LP voters can sign.
I’ll post some links / stories from BAN that explain this.
The referendum any voter can sign. Including Ds and Rs, Ds and Latino groups are mostly behind it, as well as independetnts and alt parties. Republicans oppose. It is the referendum to overturn the new law, and/or a legal challenge,, that we voted to let the EC raise up to 15k for to fund, which wuld match AZ raising same amount.
“I note that the original Wiener motion does ask *for an office* not *for an office building*, and I find claims that this wording change was anything other than part of of a deceptive scheme to be unbelievable.”
That’s just you . I remember seeing different things at various tmes that referred to either or both, I did not catalogue which one I saw when or whre. So while you find ot unbelievable, I find it qute believeablle and with no proof available it can’t be fraud in a legally proven way nor do I believe it was inended to be fraud, although it is not impossible.
Oops last paragraph @58 should be in quotes, response follows
“You are right. The people who expected the donation letters to be fraudulent somehow did did not send in money, because we are not stupid.”
I don;t believe the people who donated were stupid, and neither you nor Tom have shown that any deception was deliberate. There are such things as making mstakes.
“The letters are massively dishonest. The letters refer to a building. There is no building. In fact, I received a fundraising letter last week, well after the decision was made not to buy a building, and it still asks for money *for a building*. That is completely dishonest.”
It may have been written before that ediscrepancy was discovered, and maybe no one caught it before it went out.
That is not the same as deliberate fraud. I accidentally (!) referred to it as a building at onepoint in the thread earlier. Now I happen to know that was unintentional but you may or may not believe me. So poin being, no fraud has been proven, possibly just mistakes, and while it is possible that fraud could have ocurred I see no reason to presume that it did, Steve M’s cheap talking points to make the issue about ad hominem notwithstanding.
I note that the original Wiener motion does ask *for an office* not *for an office building*, and I find claims that this wording change was anything other than part of of a deceptive scheme to be unbelievable.
@49 A million would solve your problems.
These are all aspects of the same problem, because it is the same long time crew with some rotation that is causing them. Petitioning, overpriced guruware, outreach, advertising, fliers…. The Green party gets much more attention on a far smaller budget, in no small part because it seems to focus on actual politics.
All these items must be cured at once, as seems to have been proven by the Oregon success story.
LG you are right girl. Should have read that before I typed all that. The women are smarter 🙂
There are some errors in the story Steve M linked, which appears to be a part of the anti-petition propaganda effort by government employee unions to end or curtail the petition process so as to keep it from inerfering with their illegitimae power, there are aspects of the story I can’t discuss but it is likely I was set up, lets just put it that way.
Here are some half-truths explained:
An Alabama man’s recent guilty plea in Portland to forging signatures on initiative petitions should alert Oregonians to be on guard when asked to sign petitions. It also should alert the Legislature to stiffen the law governing signature collectors.
Exatly the propaganda the government unions pushed to stifle the petition process and fatten their pensions, political funds and other scams. Petition fraud was very small potatoes compared to the deception they constantly use to pad their pockets and power, in many different ways, including all the ways hey attacked the petition process.
Paul Frankel, a 29-year-old from Auburn, Ala., was sentenced to two years’ probation in exchange for his cooperation with the Oregon Department of Justice’s inquiry into fraudulent activities related to the initiative process. If Frankel can actually help the department in rooting out initiative fraud, the lack of jail time will be appropriate. According to a Justice Department spokeswoman, Frankel’s case “is a tip-of-the-iceberg thing.”
There was no cooperation. I just truthfully answered the questions they asked there was no point in lying at that time.
Frankel’s crimes, which were captured on videotape by opponents of initiatives put forth by anti-tax and anti-government activists Bill Sizemore and Don McIntire, were two-fold. In one instance, Frankel signed another man’s name on a petition after the man had told Frankel his name but left without signing the initiative.
Yep technically illegal, but that can involve intent to sig the petition and failure t cmplete the irreplacable element (signature) when in fact the printed name and address coud be copied or filled in .
Later, a Justice Department investigator gave Frankel his name at Portland’s Lloyd Center, but didn’t sign the initiative. The investigator later found his signature forged on one of Frankel’s petitions when he examined petitions at Sizemore’s office. Signing another person’s name on an initiative petition is a felony.
We had people hired to copy printed name and addresses from one petition to the next so it may have been them. Also my then bsiness partner conned me into signing off on a lot of work I did not do, which I should not have signed off on but I made the misake of trusting him, whch was very stupid on my part. This involved lots of drugs and hookers and psychological manipulation and owing me a lot of money so it was a screwed up arrangememt all around. I believe he may have been paid off to mess up the petition proeess. Also, he misled me to believe that the fraud would be discovered before the petitions were turned i and thus no feklony fraud, only civil law conract fraud in ripping off the client by selling him bad sigs, which would be a civil mater No exactly ethical eiher, but not the same as purpisely trying to turn the bad sigs inro he state, which in fac many other people n the petitios were doing.
2nd place fraud was all around, the state investigators were doing fraud in lying to us about what they were doing, they 2 lvels above us in petitioning were frauding each other and us, my partner was frauding me, the unions were frauding the public and the press with their propaganda campaign in both methids and purposes, etc.
In another scam, Frankel employed a kind of bait-and-switch tactic. He would entice people to sign an appealing, but non-existent, initiative dealing with, say, lowering the gas tax.
False. My bsuness partner told me it was a real petition to the legislators, no an initiative and claimed he was actually turning it in. The petition said it was a petition to the legislature and not an initiative and as far as I know that is wah it was. I believed him at he time he was actually petitioning the legislature as we had done tis for real in CA, but I nw believe he was using i as a stopper for the real petitions and trashing it, however we never claimed it was an iniiative.
Beneath that signature sheet were signature pages for legitimate initiatives. After the phony sheet on top had been signed, Frankel would flip the pages to the real petition sheets and tell the signer to sign here, here and here to verify the signature.
Another falsehood in he article, I never told anyone it was to verify anything (other petitioners may have), only to sign here, here eyc. It was never presented they were the same petition. I just tld ppl sign the red one, blue one ec, in Oregon it is all vote by mail so they can tudy the issues in the pamphlet and this just gets them in the pamphlet not expressing support or opposition, just more power to the people and less to the politicians, said that all day ever day.
The lesson is that Oregon’s initiative process, once a source of pride because of its empowerment of grass-roots citizen groups, has been usurped by deep-pocketed special interests who hire signature gatherers to meet the required signature thresholds. Many of the paid signature collectors are from out of state and are collecting signatures solely for money, not because they believe in the cause the initiative is promoting.
I believed in the causes we were promoing, so what if freedom riders came in frim out of stae? And what about the paid foreign mercenaries who helped win the American revolution?
The first step needed is for the Legislature to regulate signature gathering to the extent the courts will allow. All citizens are guaranteed the right to engage in political activity such as passing petitions. But mercenary signature gatherers are subject to labor laws, which means the state can regulate the terms of their employment in ways that reduce the temptations of fraud. Petition passers who are paid by the hour, for instance, would have less incentive to cheat than those who are paid for each signature.
This is a flat out propaganda lie. There have been more cases of fraud where people are paid by the hour. And the whole point of hat is to make petitioning so hard tha initiatives fail to make the ballot. See above as to why the unions were doing that, the paper just echoes all their propagada talking poins here.
The second step, and just as important, is for Oregon voters to be wary of tactics such as those Frankel used. If you’re suspicious of the signature gatherer or the cause he or she claims to be supporting, don’t sign the petition. Also, be aware of the Frankel-type bait-and-switch. You only have to sign a petition once. And you don’t have to give your name orally to any signature gatherer.
Lies, lies and more lies …and exactly the points the union thugs trying to block voters frm signing petitions started out making.
The bottom line is to be cautious. If you support the petition’s purpose and the signature sheet looks legitimate, sign it. If you smell a scam, don’t.
Union bosses running a far bgger scam have been going around the country copying what started then and there in Oregon trying to bait and fearmonger and sone times physcally prevent people from signing petitions union bosses don’t like, such as curtailing public sector pensions in even a small way, making their political fund opt in ratherthan opt out ec, all to preserve their scam.
And the fear mongering was and is also a scam and deceptive, there is no identity fraud in petitioning ever (they use this lie every time) not one case ever shown anywhere; and many of them are paid and/or out of statte themselves, yet they holler this about petitioners,they lie constantly and intimiadate yet say this about petitioners, they love to videotape but run away when they get vodeotaped.
They aso frequently engage in questions anc conversations under false pretenses and outright lies, all part of the petition blocking fraud playbook on behalf of a gant and very lucrative government union scam. Our fraud was but a microbe on a hemorrhoid to them.
Sizemore did encourage fraud indirectly through his pracicase as did other clients.
And trying to taint the business of the office purchase (in which I am a very minor cog) wih this decade plus olld fraud is itself quite dishonest o Steve Ms part. At best, grasping a straws, and that is being overly kind.
paulie quit defending yourself to these assholes. its in the past so dont worry what they say , nobody else does
Agreed!
BTW MHW I believe Arvin and the FB crew are already making much progress on the public relations side, we need more people to sign up to help with those efforts and to participate more fully once hey do. And Wes will hopefully also open up LP blog post more like he did last time he was ED, but without the constan self promotion frm Wayne now. We will feature mre from the FB on the main site as has already started
Also I know you are bg on literature Wes B will be updating, the last LNC tried to make materials less libertarian ideologically so they were not released, at least that is what I believe I was told not sure when o were. But I think they will b now. Carla I believe is too careful about releaing anything, with perfectionism leading to losing timeliness and quantity of news, and I like Wes B’s design s better. And Art DiBianca’s writing.
Not slamming Carla, am glad she is still on board but even more glad Wes B is coming back on as well. With a better LNC than last term and with Carla’s help I think he will be even more productive now. Plus Arvins efforts and thinks can really take off soon.
MHW @49 correct, I am on the purchase side of things bu I agree there are other issues. I believe they wil be addressed better now with both Wes and Carla on board thus more time/bandwidth to work on different things. They are also finally going to be putting a lot more interns to work which is long ovedue, thanks to requess from Dr. Lark, Arvin Vohra and some others. Sorry for sloppy typing, I am drunk, on an unfamiliar computer in the dark and haven’t had nearly enough sleep on any night in the last 9 or 10 at least maybe more.
Steve M
You are corect, I engaged in fraud when I had a relapse and got strung out on hard drugs again which was 12 years ago and ended then. Not exactly news and I have many hundreds of campaigns I have worked on before and since without any fraud at all. Generally I am very honest but there have been periods of my life when I went to the opposite extreme, I tend to careen from one extreme to the other and usually there are massive amounts of hard drugs involved whee it turns from occassional partyin to be a habit and then shit gets fucked up all around me whch is what happens when adics get strung out duh. And yes that was the last time that happened, in 2001, other than that it was a period in the mid to late 1980s when I was a preteen and teenager. I have partied a few times since but not been strung out.
That does not mean I am in favor of or defend fraud as a practice, that is ludicrus and your insinuation is wholly false. Fraud is a crime and should be treated as such. My fraud was also treated as a crime, and irrespective of how many other people got away with the same crime as Wes points out above, I still did do the crime and did do the time and I have no qualms about that.
Now I realize that you think it means my paid and volunteer work since then is tainted by this, but it is not. My need to fight for justice and liberty in the world does not go away just because I had an isolated relapse a dozen years ago. I will keep up the fight rgardless of whether you like it or not, so you can go to hell.
The building issue seems to me to be a pimple compared to the boil that is the problem.
The LP has a lot of bigger issues than this building/office mistake that should be addressed. We could start we inadequate public relations tools and work up from there.
Steve M you may want to take the time to read what Wes Wagner has written. It might even help to dig into that issue a bit.
@46 Are those mutually exclusive options? 🙂
BTW is your phone on?
am I crazy or isnt a condo a building Semantic Man??
Look, Paulie is arguing that marketing practices used to raise funds to buy a condo, even though everyone was told that the LNC was intending to buy a building wasn’t fraud.
Others believe that if you say give use your cash we are going to do X with it but instead do Y with it is fraud.
Me I think that misleading people ether for getting their signature on a petition or getting their cash for buying real estate and engaging in deception are both fraud.
I have thought Paulie’s main problem is that he takes an easy path that isn’t right and tries to justify it. I think he is doing so again and thus Jill… no I don’t think he has changed.
Good question Jill? do they? haven’t you argued otherwise?
But, how many years ago was that, Steve? Paulie doesn’t keep his history a secret, but there’s no reason to think he still does it. People do change, you know.
Wes….
Exceeding 55 mph during the Indianapolis 500 isn’t against the law.
Paulie used intentionally deceptive methods to gather signatures in a method which was against the law. Just because everyone else was doing it doesn’t excuse his actions.
We are playing a tough game…. if you don’t play it clean and to the rules, you are going to lose.
As someone who was living in Oregon at the time the whole Paulie Frankel petitioning thing went down, the whole situation regarding petitioning in this state was a pretty bad scene.
Ultimately Paulie was pinched in order to get to Sizemore, who was the primary target. If you were to start charging people with the crimes that Paulie was targeted with in 2000-2001 you would have been handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
I am not going to defend the situation, but, to those outside of Oregon, there is much more to this story than just the news article.
Steve it is common knowledge here on IPR but for you ….
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Be+wary+of+petitioners.-a082786782
You did plead guilty to this didn’t your Paulie?
Why do you say thAt about fraud and Paulie, Steve M? Do you have proof of this?
George and Thomas… cut it out… Paulie being an expert on fraud probably knows what he is talking about.
@22
What is the percentage of voters needed?
Which voters may sign?
That is, if I am running in AZ for Congress as a Libertarian, which voters may sign my nominating papers?
The people who expected the donation letters to be fraudulent somehow did not send in money, because we are not stupid.
After all, the LNC has a very long history, going back over a decade, of sending out fundraising letters with promises, and a record you can look up.
“All the accusations of fraud are from non-donors who oppose the office purchase.”
You are right. The people who expected the donation letters to be fraudulent somehow did did not send in money, because we are not stupid.
The letters are massively dishonest. The letters refer to a building. There is no building. In fact, I received a fundraising letter last week, well after the decision was made not to buy a building, and it still asks for money *for a building*. That is completely dishonest.
I note that the original Wiener motion does ask *for an office* not *for an office building*, and I find claims that this wording change was anything other than part of of a deceptive scheme to be unbelievable.
Lying involved intentional deception. I don’t believe there was any intent to deceive, nor do the people who actually donated feel deceived, and you haven’t show that anyone intentionally misrepresented anything, at all. Thus no lying and no fraud unless you have some evidence I haven’t seen.
Paulie,
Fraud is fraud whether the victims “feel defrauded” or not.
The LNC raised the money on the claim that it would be used to buy a building.
Now it is being used to buy something else.
That’s fraud. Period.
And doing it through the mail is mail fraud.
“All the accusations of fraud are from non-donors who oppose the office purchase.”
1) I’m not accusing fraud. I’m noticing it.
2) I don’t “oppose the office purchase.” I’m just noticing that the LNC lied about the office purchase.
Mail fraud? You have evidence that there is a government prosecution involved?
As reported at the meeting, no actual donors have reported feeling defrauded. Only one felt the language was somewhat deceptive, but still wanted to donate anyway.
All the accusations of fraud are from non-donors who oppose the office purchase.
@30,
“the name of the fund was changed to reflect that”
Yeah, good luck with that.
Was snail mail used at all in the scheme? Mail fraud is good for 20 years per count.
Yep, we are close to concluding that deal. It’s for a condo, and the name of the fund was changed to reflect that. If I quit getting distracted I may even get to type in that part of my notes.
@28,
“In 7-8 years, when the building is paid off”
In order to pay off a building, the LNC would first have to enter into a deal to buy a building.
What kind of math is that? ROI is over time, not over one year. The immediate benefit is that our monthly costs will save us several thousand a month. In 7-8 years, when the building is paid off, or hopefully sooner if more is contributed, there will be several thousand more every month in savings in addition to several thousand per month we save now to then. The down payment is from dedicated contributions, most of which would never go to any other LP project at all otherwise. And the same is true of some of the money that will come in later.
Readers will note that the office purchase is supposed to save $60,000 a year. That’s on a cost of at last report 1 or 1.2 million. Do the math; that’s a return on investment of 5 or 6%. Furthermore, you are with the proposed purchase stuck in a condo building, most of whose occupants are renters. If the building goes bad, if the building is used as a cash cow to support something else and is neglected, those renters may leave, dominant owners have several neat legal tricks, and the remaining owners, including the David F Nolan Memorial 2% of a Building, may see their investments go down badly. Condos have all of the bad features of renting, and all of the bad features of a freestanding fully-owned building, plus a few of their own. Hopefully we will not do quite as badly as the condos I watched some years ago, in which the last units sold for 25% of the price of the first units, these being as it happened the select display/end units.
Mind you, if we had paid $60 a square foot as available in some obvious libertarian-leaning locations, even for something that was way bigger than our current office, was an actual building, and had plenty of parking for volunteers, which we could do out of current money on hand, and saved the rest of the cost as a reasonable investment, the saved part of the cost once invested and assuming the S&P average return* would yield around $80,000/year forever (or around $50,000 a year in real dollars).
George, who actually is a multimillionaire through careful investing. *OK, for the last decade I beat the S&P 500 by about four percentage points, but I wouldn’t count on that as an expectation for the LNC.
Redpath was the only full voting LNC member not present; Region 1 was represented by alternate Tony Ryan as Norm Olsen was not there. Lee Wrights felt ill and was not there towards the end of the meeting, but made it most of the way through. I think all or almost all other LNC members were there til the end at 7:30 PM or so for a meeting that started promptly at 8 AM.
More from Tony Ryan quoted @22
Barry,
I brought this up at the LNC meeting yesterday and the Chair restructured our motion for matching funding to be acted upon by the Executive Committee. I made the point that the current efforts are time sensitive – my 5 minutes for the Region report became 45 minutes on this issue.
TR
Oh, yes, how did Nevada turn out?
The short answer was that no immediate action was taken and we will be taking up the matter on the email list. Brett and I will work on a timeline of when deadlines occur for us to do various things, etc.
I think the discussion did improve some LNC members’ understanding of the situation. I got the sense that many of them were not aware of some of what we discussed even though it had been mentioned in previous LNC emails. I think many LNC members skim their emails or just don’t pay much attention to a lot of them.
I got the sense more of them will be willing to consider action now, but want to make sure all other avenues of resolution are exhausted first before we do anything.
@17 Did anyone remark on where current donations have been (exclusive of building) relative to the budget?
Not much discussion of budget but it was mentioned there was a temporary slump due to some time and effort being diverted to the office purchase rather than general fundraising. As best I understood it. However, there will now be more people and time to work on both. Also, we saved a month of rent at the Watergate due to renegotiation. That was May 2013 rent.
Via LNC list
Tony Ryan
[email protected] [email protected] via hq.lp.org
9:37 AM (1 hour ago)
to lnc-discuss
Hello, all,
Thank you for your time on this issue yesterday. I found this email on my phone last evening after our meeting.
As Chairman Neale pointed out, this is an outrageous travesty we need to act on. Here, AZLP Vice Chair and longtime activist Barry Hess makes a good point about the how the LP responds to this.
To steal the style of Dr. Lark, thanks you all for what you do for liberty.
Tony Ryan
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
AZGovernor wrote:
Hello All;
I would urge the National Party to get actively involved in this issue, in part because if we are not successful, we’ll be in deep%@&* as far as running any Libertarian candidates in the elections to come. I’m hopeful National will grant us funds without matching requirements because after we have the signatures–we’re going to need to put up some kind of campaign for the voters, and that will take some money.
So far, We have retired State Senator (R) Karen Johnson, State Senator (D), Steve Gallardo, Sheriff Richard Mack (Constitutional Sheriff’s Association, and Tea Party), The League of Women Voters, Clint Bolick of the GoldWater Institute, fmr. Mayor (D) of Phoenix, Paul Johnson, The Green Party, The Democrat Party, and more that I can’t think of off the top of my head, and even more who want to be a part of it. The group doesn’t agree–except the right of all individuals to have access to the workings of their government, and the ability to participate in that government–a level playing field.
I couldn’t stress the benefit of our (Libertarians) being seen as the ones who can bring desperate groups together to get something done, enough.
Time is of the essence.
As always,
I remain at your service,
Vice-Chairman/ Communications Director
AZ Libertarian Party
Author of: The PeaceMonger
http://www.ThePeaceMonger.com
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/270450
On 7/14/2013 3:25 PM, Warren Severin wrote:
Hi, Norm and cc:’d,
I’m on vacation in Maine for another couple of weeks and have limited internet and email. I have conveyed your motion for the LNC to our AZLP board and I have exchanged phone calls and emails with several of the board members. We are very appreciative of your efforts on our behalf.
There are two major thrusts of our campaign to rectify the mess created by HR2305. First is the referendum to recall the legislation. In that effort we have a large partnership as you have described. So far all of the funding for the signature gathering is being provided by the Democrats. While we are contributing signatures on petitions, etc., it looks like this effort will not be all that expensive for AZLP. We will expend some funds for our signature gathering efforts and LNC matching of the expenditures we make would permit us to double our effort. Note that what I am proposing is not exactly the same as LNC matching new AZLP’s new contributions.
Our main value to the referendum effort is as the most visible and vocal casualty of the legislation. In that regard Barry Hess (1st Vice Chair) is leading our effort. Right now what we need are opportunities to get in front of the press and make our case. The LNC could be a big help in doing this. I’m not sure where things are with regard to the LNC ED at this point, but any press visibility that LNC can arrange for us will be very appreciated.
The second thrust of our effort to undo HR2305 is through litigation. In this effort our partnership with other parties is significantly reduced. It will be just AZLP, the Greens, and LWV. No deep pockets to rely on. We have two attorneys who are happy to work with us – David Hardy and Michael Kielsky (2nd vice chair) – but litigation is not free. We will know in another 60 days whether the referendum has succeeded or failed to gather sufficient signatures. If it fails then we will be balls to the wall with the litigation. Here is where some LNC funding would be particularly welcome.
So, what I’m suggesting is that whatever resolution for funding may come from the LNC, I hope it can be worded or construed to (1) match funds we expend in the referendum effort, and (2) match or otherwise provide some assistance with the cost of litigation.
Thanks, Norm. Let us know.
Best regards,
Warren Severin
Chairman, Arizona Libertarian Party
On 07/13/2013 12:43 PM, Norm Olsen wrote:
Hello Tony . . .
Warren Severin:
Tony Ryan:
Deadline: September 11, 2013 (90 days after the adjournment of the legislature)
I have pasted below what is contained in the Region 1 Report I have posted to lnc-discuss concerning Arizona.
I have attached a .pdf (i.e. a scan of the paper copy, and electronic form is unavailable at this time) of page 2 of the July 1, 2013 Ballot Access News (Richard Winger). In this report, the specific republicans involved are identified.
Here are some more pertinent links:
http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=34729
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2013/07/arizonas_voter_suppression_law.php
More talking points:
1> This is a distinct republican challenge coming from inside the beltway. We need to respond.
2> Remember: Voters at the 2012 general election rejected an official Top Two proposal by a substantial margin, thus there should be a lot of support for this effort within the electorate at large.
3> Along with the Greens, we also have the main stream media and the democrats on our side. Achieving success is an entirely reasonable proposition.
4> If we don’t participate as a national organization, while the Hispanics, the Greens, the Democrats, etc. are all on board, it will be somewhat embarrassing.
5> AGAIN: There are more than 24,000 Arizonans who are registered as Libertarians but who are NOT BSM members of the LNC.
6> If we achieve success here, the benefits could be enjoyed by other states, such as Colorado, where the Republicans have threatened our access to the ballot by either legal or legislative methods.
7> AGAIN: The benefits of success in this effort will last more than one election cycle, and could very well provide benfits to more than just a single state.
Norm
<<<< begin cut and paste >>>>>>>
Region 1 Report (14 July 2013)
Warren Severin, State Chair
Warren reports:
Bad news in Arizona. The Republicans effectively kicked us off the island with some sneaky last-minute changes to legislation. While we have not lost “ballot access”, it will be henceforth nearly impossible to get any of our candidates on it. It all happened in a space of two weeks, concluding with the governors signature on a bill last Tuesday.
Early in the year the Republicans introduced two bills to modify AZ election laws and procedures. One bill, HB2305, was meant to shut down Democrat shenanigans around early ballot collections. It was relatively innocuous from our perspective. The other bill, HB2568, was directed squarely at us. It proposed to change the formula for determining ballot petition signature requirements so as to lower the requirements for Republicans while raising those for Libertarian candidates by over 4000%. A private discussion with the bill’s sponsor confirmed that the entire purpose was to prevent Libertarian candidates from “stealing” Republican votes. That bill died during the committee process. The chair of the judiciary committee (a Republican with some scruples left) never brought it before the whole committee.
The Republicans saw the error of their tactics. Ten days before HB2305 was to go to the main floor of the senate for a vote, a ‘free’ committee amended it to add the wording of the failed HB2568. In the meantime, the governor called an emergency session of the legislature to finish an unfinished budget. Once the budget was passed the legislators wanted nothing but to get home. Midnight, literally. A vote on HB2305 was called. It FAILED. Three Republicans broke ranks and voted against it along with all the Democrats. After that, hell broke loose. There were many phone calls to the wayward Republicans – even some from Washington. Within a few minutes there one of the wayward R’s asked for a recall on the vote. This time, the bill PASSED on a straight party-line vote.
The Green party chair and I made a trip to the governors office and spent about half an hour with the director of legislative affairs. Despite lobbying from us, and the press, the governor signed the bill four days later.
We have now formed an alliance with the Greens, Dems, and LWV to fight this thing. We had a high level strategy meeting yesterday. Without going into significant detail at this point, there will be a referendum to recall the legislation. A committee is being formed. The committee will have 90 days to gather 88,000 good signatures. Obviously this will be resource and money intensive. Any help from the LNC will be appreciated.
The press is STRONGLY on our side. Even the Arizona Republic.
There will be legal action. We and the Greens are once again partners. Our lawyers are working on it. The Dems will also pursue legal action.
The take-away here is that this is likely NOT a local Arizona problem. Arizona is, once again, a canary in the coal mine. The actions on the night that the bill was passed indicate strong involvement of the Republican national party. Consider that somebody with enough clout to bully three legislators was up at 3:00 in the morning (Eastern time) following the AZ legislature and making phone calls. The Republicans may be taking this on as a national tactic.
The Arizona Republic reports:
Libertarians and Green Party candidates would be virtually cut off from running for office under new nominating-petition requirements in a bill now on Gov. Jan Brewer’s desk. Meanwhile, the legislation eases the number of signatures needed for Republican and Democratic candidates.
On Tuesday, critics of the law said it’s a valentine for Republican candidates, who see third-party candidates, particularly Libertarians, as spoilers in races.
The provision was tacked onto a wide-ranging election bill, House Bill 2305, one week before the Legislature adjourned. It passed on largely partyline votes in the closing hours of the session with the support of most Republicans and solid opposition from Democrats.
On Tuesday, the minor-party officials said the bill, if signed, would cement the two parties’ hold on Arizona elections.
“This will squelch any dissent,” said Barry Hess, communications chairman for the state Libertarian Party. “This stuff has got to stop.”
The differences are dizzying, said Warren Severin, the Libertarians’ state chairman. For example, a Libertarian seeking to run for governor would face a 4,380-percent increase in required signatures, Severin said. In the east Valley’s Legislative District 16, the increase would be 4,463 percent.
That’s because House Bill 2305 changes the basis for qualifying signatures from 1 percent of all voters registered with a given party to a percentage of all registered voters. That creates such a high hurdle for gathering signatures that Greens would likely stop trying to run in a party primary and instead run as write-in candidates, said Angel Torres, the party’s state director.
Current law says candidates for Congress and the Legislature must get the signatures of 1 percent of the voters in their party; statewide candidates, such as governor or attorney general, require half of 1 percent. Since Libertarians and Greens have low registration levels, that translates into small numbers.
Spreading the requirement across all voters dramatically increases the numbers. For example, a Green candidate looking to run in Congressional District 1 would need 624 signatures to qualify under the proposed legislation, compared to three under the current requirement. But a Republican running in that district would have a lower hurdle than current law: 573 signatures, compared to 624.
The Democrats say they share the concern that the bill hurts minor parties and joined with the Greens and the Libertarians to urge Brewer to veto the legislation. She has until June 26 to act on bills.
Richard Winger of Ballot Access News reports:
As noted earlier, an omnibus election law bill was signed by Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer last week. The bill, HB 2305, contains the provision that vastly increases the difficulty for members of minor parties to get on their own party’s primary ballot. The bill has many other provisions which are strongly opposed by the Democratic Party and by various voting rights organizations.
If opponents of the bill can obtain 86,405 valid signatures on a referendum petition by September 11, 2013 (90 days after the adjournment of the legislature), then the bill can’t go into effect until after the voters vote on it. That vote would be on November 4, 2013. It is somewhat likely that opponents of the bill will launch a referendum petition. The Arizona referendum procedure, requiring signatures of 5% of the last gubernatorial vote, is easier than the state’s initiative petition requirement. Initiatives require 10% of the last gubernatorial vote for a statute, and 15% for a state constitutional amendment.
<<<< end cut and paste >>>>>>>
—
Norman T Olsen
Regional Representative, Region I
Libertarian National Committee
7931 S Broadway, PMB 102
Littleton, Colorado 80122-2710
303-277-9967
[email protected]
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Gandhi
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2013 8:32 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Arizona Support Motion
Norm;
I seem to have lost the AZ info on the legislature’s action. I’ll need to explain it better (do you have Warren Severinson’s contact info?). There will be questions, I’m sure – and how much of the 90 days is left?
TR
In a message dated 7/12/2013 11:17:53 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
Hello Tony . . .
With regard to the motion of support for Arizona, some suggestions. You know better how to deal with these folks than I do, so these are only suggestions.
Motion: It is moved that the sum of $15,000 from the 2013 budget surplus to Ballot Access budget line for the express purpose of supporting the efforts of the Arizona affiliate to support a petitioning effort to refer to the effects of the legislation known as HB 2305 to the electorate at the November 2013 general election subject to the following conditions:
1> Funds shall be distributed up to the maximum of $15,000 only in direct proportion (i.e. matching funds) to the funds raised by the Arizona affiliate specifically for the purposes of this motion, and
2> Funds to be distributed under the supervision of the Executive Director without additional approval pursuant to the purposes and conditions expressed in this motion.
In support of this motion, please consider emphasizing to our colleagues that the motion(‘s):
1> Purpose is to preserve ballot access already obtained (i.e. normal ballot access in reverse)
2> If successful, will very likely preserve ballot access for several future election cycles
3> Only matches funds raised by the local affiliate; if the Arizona affiliate does not do anything, it does not cost the LNC anything
4> Time requirement is 90 days (after the legislative adjournment, which has already happened)
5> Affiliate fund raising activities will be sure to mention the LNC’s participation, which will
6> Improve the image of the LNC in the eyes of the 23,600+ Arizonians registered as Libertarians who are not currently donating members of the LNC.
Due to number 4 above, if you can’t get this onto the agenda, or time is running out, may I suggest you move for a suspension of the rules to get this considered at the meeting, thus precluding a 10 day mail ballot delay.
Good luck.
Norm
PS> Michael Cloud should be a sure second for this motion. I suggest you talk to Brett Pojunis as a supporter as well.
—
Norman T Olsen
Regional Representative, Region I
Libertarian National Committee
7931 S Broadway, PMB 102
Littleton, Colorado 80122-2710
303-277-9967
[email protected]
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” — Gandhi
_______________________________________________
Lnc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-discuss_hq.lp.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxcu2D4kMg
I worked the Freedom Fest LP booth all four days, and was there most of the day each time. It was a mixed crowd of mostly well off libertarians and conservatives, plus a few Students for Liberty, spouses and kids of attendees, other exhibitors (some political, some purely business ventures). We signed up perhaps a few dozen LP dues paying members, had a few dozen attendees at a talk by Carla and Geoff (most were already Libertarians, as we were up against Rand Paul speaking in another part of the conference at the same time; the few Republicans walked out early). Gave away lots of LP promotional items such as carry bags, keychains, bumper stickers, door hanger/quiz handouts, card decks, sold maybe a hundred T-shirts, had some conversations with attendees ranging from productive to unproductive and friendly to hostile. Most of the crowd seemed disinterested rather than either eager or hostile, with most claiming to be libertarians but more interested in taking over the Republican Party and many not interested in talking to us at all. There were some media interviews for Geoff and Carla and lots of informal networking with other media and political organizations, potential donors, etc. A fundraising event for the building fund was held, but didn’t seem well attended, and there was no formal program, just a small group of people sitting and standing around socializing in even smaller groups and Robert Kraus showing a presentation about the office purchase on an ipad to individuals and small groups. There were some donations, but I don’t know the total or even a ballpark estimate.
If we spend more money on a booth in the next year or several, I would recommend extra funds for hiring (or at least bringing in, feeding and housing) some attractive young people (interns or volunteers) to help work the booth with us over paying for a more expensive display. Two or three middle aged caucasoid males is a bad image for the party, and unfortunately I was part of the problem, not part of the solution. Carla worked the booth some, but less than Robert Kraus, Bob Johnston or myself, and Geoff Neale and Mark Hinkle were there some. Every once in a while someone else. It would have been nice to have more women, youth, and/or people of other kinds of backgrounds there more often.
I made an unsuccessful attempt to get us to use the Republican Wall of Shame, the original is in Debra Dedmon’s garage but she did not bring it down to the hotel. I think it would have been a conversation starter 🙂
Oh, yes, how did Nevada turn out?
@17 Did anyone remark on where current donations have been (exclusive of building) relative to the budget?
The ostensible purpose is so that no one can claim later that he did not in fact sign it or that he did no get a chance to read what he signed (and the same with Geoff). I think the main reason was more ceremonial.
We consulted legal counsel, and at this time it would probably not be prudent to discuss any details of the contract in public. If any aspects of it are public record which can be verified by anyone and everyone by some means other than being on LNC or talking to an LNC member, such as FEC or other government reports posted online, that can be discussed.
I heard a more concrete answer at one point, but I don’t remember it. It will be covered in detail in the next staff report and the ones after that. What I do know is that everyone at the national office has always told me that they are badly understaffed and could do a lot more if there were more people to do it. Thus, I am quite sure that neither Wes nor Carla will be sitting around being idle at work. With more work being done, I am optimistic it will give our donors more reasons to contribute more money to cover any additional salary that may be being paid, and Wes has a proven ability to raise money as ED of Texas and National last time around as well as his PACs more recently, which includes personal connections to large donors.
Of course,. prior performance is not a guarantee of future results, so if we end up digging ourselves a hole, we might unfortunately find ourselves in a position to have to consider staff and/or program cuts in the future. But at this point I am optimistic that having both Wes and Carla on board will more than pay for itself.
What I remember being said was that it has been handled both ways at various times in the past and is at the discretion of the chair, and that Geoff wants them at the table, which I took to mean in the remaining meetings this term as well. I could be wrong.
Carla had mifi, which was no cost, you just had to get the password from her. It was godawful slow though, and Andy’s computer kept shutting off, so I gave up.
Scott Spencer, Alternate for Professor Jim Lark (Region 5S), was also there. I believe he has a 100% attendance record so far this term, as do Lieberman and I. However, as of now I am leaning towards skipping the next meeting or two unless they are conveniently located and don’t interfere with work. The other meetings I attended:
Vegas last year, did interfere with work and was on the opposite coast from where I was. However, it was my first meeting as an LNC member so I felt it was important to be there.
NoVA in November, Chicago in March: Neither interfered with work, and were moderately inconvenient in bus time (both from and back to Alabama)
This one (did not interfere with work – my last gig just ended right before I came down here and the next one is not fully firmed up yet, although I do have a low paying one as a fallback) – but was inconveniently located, 40 hours by bus from where I was before the meeting and probably something like that from where I am going next.
Not counting opportunity cost, each of those trips has cost me somewhere around a grand; I’ve received some contributions to offset part of that, which I appreciate, but I’m still paying most of it, and I can’t afford it. A big reason why many otherwise qualified people don’t run for LNC, or quit if they haven’t fully thought it through before they run and win. In my case I was already aware of this, so it wasn’t a surprise, but I can’t afford another term.
They generally don’t allow for much privacy for the secret meetings. The waiters are constantly in and out because they expect our primary reason to be there is to purchase food and drinks. Yesterday’s meeting consumed close to 12 hours not including milling around before and after and during breaks, and for several portions of it we had to exile substantial parts of our group outside the meeting room. I don’t think this would have worked at a restaurant, although there may be some other non-hotel venues where it would have. Where this discussion stands is that the apparent majority of LNC and staff who are not very openminded on this concept have said they are willing to consider it (IE vote it down) but only if Starchild does all the work of putting together a concrete proposal first with no help from staff or anyone else that typically does this.
Also, I’ve brought up the idea of having at least some of the meetings through phone and/or web conference; that was shot down as well. The three arguments I remember being used against me were 1) It is against the bylaws (sorry – I don’t remember exactly how), 2) LNC Members would be too distracted trying to conduct business from home or an office store or some such, 3) The informal social aspects of the meetings are important, not just the formal business part. Personally I think the latter two are weak arguments (for example, informal meetings can still happen and don’t necessarily have to be in conjunction with a business meeting; we could have LNC camping trips, machine gun shoots, or whatever). As for the bylaws, I’m no expert, but if this is indeed an issue with having LNC business meetings other than physically in person that should be fixed at the next convention. The high financial costs of serving on the LNC are one of the biggest problems with the national party IMO.
If you are still here and haven’t gone to sleep yet you can use my room for that.
I’m using Andy’s computer for now, but it keeps shutting off, so I’m not sure how much I can do on here (I’ll try). He’s flying out so I only have maybe 2-4 hours to try. If anyone is in Vegas and will be around after 11 am or so with a computer I can use, or in the meantime if your computer works better, give me a call or just stop by.
The grotesque mismanagement of the Libertarian Party has made it into little more than controlled opposition for the past 13 years. That Andrew Jacobs can tell the truth (at this meeting) about how the party is mismanaged, and not instantly reset everyone’s priorities is simple proof of how bad it is. The emperor wears no clothes.
The LNC has better things to do that vote for the LP to be run in a moral and efficient manner. They have “better things to worry about” than their core responsibilities.
Holding these expensive “fly around the country and waste everyone’s time and money” LNC meetings does nothing to advance the cause of liberty or elect libertarians.
Then, the people who claim to care about “institutional memory” dare to tell Andy he’s got it wrong. LOL! The LP is a joke. Thanks for nothing, guys. There’s nothing inherent in Samuel Konkin’s arguments that makes him correct. It’s theoretically possible to run a libertarian political party in a responsible manner that obeys the laws of emergent organization.
But the LP isn’t an example of that, and for what it’s worth, this has proven SEK3 correct by default. Corrupt people (Bill Redpath, Scott Kohlhaas, etc.) have seized control of the ballot access process in the LP, and neutralized the LP as a threat to the Democrats and Republicans.
There is no other explanation for why Paul Frankel and Andrew Jacobs were told to go to work in North Dakota, and then had Bill Redpath drop a bunch of mercenary hacks on them.
1) The deadline wasn’t for a year.
2) The mercenaries were the same people who screwed up the PA 2012 petition drive in 2012.
3) That wasn’t the agreement Redpath made with Paul Frankel.
4) The mercenaries were caught in ND grossly misrepresenting the LP. Here’s what one of them had to say about Edward Snowden “Snowden is a traitor and should be put in prison.” (And this doofus was circulating the LP petition! This paints us as a mindless “further to the right” political party. Snowden is a Libertarian Party hero, to all libertarians who have more than two brain cells to rub together.)
5) These were the same mercenaries who were caught working the 2012 IL LP petition like a plebiscite (ie: not checking to see if the signers were registered voters, opening up the LP to the possibility of a successful legal challenge)
6) When Andrew Jacobs suggested that the uninvited mercenaries not be allowed to work, or that they split their portion of the work with the people who hired them and brought them in, he was told by Bill Redpath that he was fired. No review, no debate, no discussion, in spite of the fact that he has a flawless track record as a petitioner, and as a voice for eliminating corruption in the LP. (He has been labeled by Redpath as “difficult to work with” because he demanded that Scott Kohlhaas pay him for work he did in 2006. When Andy’s true allegations of fraud –nonpayment for completed work of getting NE on the ballot in 2006– blew up in 2007, Kohlhaas and Redpath then developed a vendetta for Andy and anyone who took his side in the 2007 and 2008 argument. Redpath then tried to eliminate all future work going to Andrew, and anyone who agreed with him, in favor of farming the work out to hack mercenaries.)
All of this counteracts the LP functioning as anything that is even remotely effective, moral, or intelligent. Political movements are built on the street, by talking to people, face-to-face. This is how order emerges, and how “challenger” political movements take market share from the status quo political structure.
Bill Redpath knows this. He’s a political science major. He’s read “Winning Elections” by Dick Simpson. He’s read “Rules for Radicals.” He’s a part and parcel of the Saul Alinsky control machine.
He got a bunch of Libertarian chumps to support him. He wastes your money and your time, and you’ve given him the keys to the kingdom.
The LNC is a joke.
The LP is a joke.
The Libertarian Party donor base have been ripped off horribly for the past 13 years.
The LP should know how to win State Legislative seats. They won 4/40 of them in Alaska from 1978-1982. They won 4/200 of them in NH before 2000. Since then, the LP hasn’t done anything significant.
It can’t be bothered by people who want it to correct its foundation. It can’t be bothered by people who are sounding the alarm.
Maybe it can wither and die.
At this point, that would be preferable to offering a false promise of freedom.
If the electoral freedom movement doesn’t exist, we should stop pretending it does, and providing an outlet for the anger and resentment of well-meaning patriots. SEK3 was wrong. Nothing precludes the possibility of a successful electoral movement in favor of individual freedom. But such a thing is very difficult to build, and it’s likely to be infiltrated. That’s why it needs to develop a strategy that is capable of both transparency and victory.
The LP is opaque. Bill Redpath is in control of ballot access, because the LP is too lazy and stupid to listen to Paul, Andy, Mark, myself, and several others who know how ballot access should be done. They have no interest in self-examination, or optimization. They want to hand Bill Redpath 90% of the money the LP raises and say “Make the problem go away, we don’t want to look under the hood.”
Redpath has proceeded to hire the lowest common denominator precisely because they don’t ask any questions, and don’t care to build the LP or get involved with LP meetings.
LP Activists do.
And that’s why they’re on a hiring blacklist.
This makes the LP less strategically intelligent than the Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats’ Michael Whouley understands the importance of interfacing with the voters. And he’s given the many millions necessary to do the job, by the Democratic face of the Sociopath Party.
The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, tries to make sure that Libertarian activists aren’t paid for the work that they pay mercenary hacks to do. This results in a schizophrenic message from the national LP, and abject failure to build a viable political movement. It also results in the LP being the party of Bill Redpath and Scott Kohlhaas.
When this information is brought up at LNC meetings, the LNC doesn’t care to listen to it. They can’t be bothered. They just want to hob-knob with other well-off people like Redpath who can afford to fly around and act self-important.
I thought the LP was full of people who read Hayek? I thought the LP was full of intellectuals who understood something about basic political strategy? My bad! Nothing of the sort concerns them.
The LP is a club of dilettantes and political neophytes who don’t care to meaningfully oppose the existing political power-structure.
1) They are silent on the grotesque oppression the drug war has wreaked on the black community, and silent to the overt racism of the American prison industrial complex. They dare not even go as far as Ron Paul did in proclaiming the selective enforcement of the drug war against racial minorities as the primary means of institutionalized racism. (In his PBS appearance in the 2008 election cycle. Youtube it.)
2) They dare not go as far as Ron Paul did in condemning the illegal and unconstitutional wars and occupations, and illegal spying programs, as what Ron Paul did.
3) They dare not challenge the establishment of mala prohibita law, and dare not challenge the courts directly, giving the public the information they need to be free, irrespective of the outcome of elections. See: http://www.fija.org
For these reasons, the LP is a joke, and a nonstarter. If the hiring practices of the LP hadn’t reversed course into corruption and cronyism, we’d already have scores of Libertarian State Legislators elected. And these State Legislators wouldn’t just be jerks who fail to get bad laws voted down: they’d be champions of the people, preventing the enforcement of those bad laws in front of courthouses, nationwide.
A real libertarian electoral movement would truly threaten the prison industrial complex.
And that’s precisely why a real libertarian electoral movement doesn’t exist.
Thanks Bill, and your deadweight LNC!
If I come across a bit harsh above, I’m probably releasing some pent-up annoyance at some of the business-as-usual at the meeting today.
1005 am – We’re finally back in session, after going into a secret meeting around 830 am to discuss a personnel matter (contract for Wes Benedict, chair Geoff Neale’s choice as new hire to head the party’s office staff).
Somebody makes a motion to approve the contract for Wes, who will be replacing Carla Howell as executive director.
Slightly before or after that I note my objection to Geoff’s hiring process in which LNC was not consulted about his choice of Wes before he announced it. I have other additional concerns based on the details of the contract from the secret meeting which I’m not allowed to discuss. I state that for this reason, and not for any issues with Wes, I will vote no on approving the contract.
As Paulie reported, everyone else votes yes except for Brett Pojunis.
Geoff asks Wes to come up and sign three copies of the contract on the spot. Not quite sure why this little ritual was seen as needed. The only saving grace was a bit of joking about whether Wes had already seen the contract he was going to sign. He ended up being given some time to review it and make sure the copies were all the same.
Ironically, the contract is kept secret from the rest of the room witnessing the mini dog-and-pony show, as Geoff says nothing about what’s in it and nobody not on the LNC besides Wes is allowed to see it.
In response to a question, LP operations director Robert Kraus says the extra expense of now having Carla in the newly recreated post of political director while Wes assumes the executive director post is “close” to being covered by the budget.
Brett asks an excellent question: “What is the job description for political director?”
The somewhat rambling answer from multiple individuals suggests the responses are sort of being winged.
Geoff actually says at one point, and I quote, “It’s Wes’s job to figure that out”. (!)
Wes says he’s going to “do a lot of the typical political director stuff, communications stuff” — “I’m going to focus more on fundraising… several projects that Geoff Neale has in mind” He adds that “we both have jobs that are half as big as they were before.”
Unfortunately I’m not sure I can disclose whether their salaries will also be half as big, but some of you may be able to guess the answer to that.
Carla says one of things they (she and Geoff and Wes?) talked about was that she will be “available to help with fundraising”, and on “helping to get (the message of limited government out) through our communications”.
Geoff asks the committee whether there are any objections to Carla and Wes sitting at the table with us.
I ask whether that would be just staff for this meeting. Geoff responds that Robert is staff, and he isn’t being asked to sit at the table. I repeat asking whether he means just for this meeting. The response sounds like it bears a passing resemblance to a “yes”.
Gary Johnson says he does object, but sort of seems to indicate he isn’t going to make a stink about it. He says they didn’t used to do it that way when he was on the LNC before.
* * *
Skipping ahead, as I didn’t write anything down for a bit and don’t even recall now after the fact what item we were on without looking at the agenda.
Geoff says about the just-ended conference that was the reason behind today’s date and location being picked for the LNC to meet, argues that “Freedom Fest is an event we MUST attend. CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] is a MAY attend”. He adds that “we’re not doing a very good job selling ourselves”.
This type of “sales” language always reminds me of what I see as one of the big flaws in our current approach — too often acting as if freedom or its champions are just another commercial product to push at people, like cheese or diapers.
Geoff says he wants us to “look like a class operation” as opposed to having “vinyl tape-up banners”.
It’s either he or Michael Cloud, I can’t recall which, who delivers what he claims is an important principle in sales, recommending dishonesty in our communications (according to what I presume is their definition of “success”):
“The first thing to do is act like we’re successful, then you become successful”.
Or perhaps then you acquire a reputation for lack of honesty and integrity in your dealings with the public.
Be sure to bring your Gucci handbag or Rolex watch when going in front of the press to speak for the party, and carry/wear them without any sense of irony or deliberate attempt at camp. This will be sure to help create a favorable impression (not!).
I’m reminded of an amusing song by the Fat Boys — “Lies”. Perhaps someone can post a link to the video.
I get a ride over with Libertarian Girl and her friend Alan and come in a few minutes late, probably 805 or 810 or so.
Here’s who’s present:
Geoff Neale
Lee Wrights
Dave Blau (secretary)
Tim Hagen (treasurer)
Vicki Kirkland
Jillian Mack
Brett Pojunis
Arvin Vohra
Michael Cloud
Jim Lark
Dianna Visek
Starchild
Dan Wiener
Mark Hinkle
Gary Johnson
Rich Tomaso
Tony Ryan (in for Norm Olsen)
Paul Frankel (alt.)
Scott Lieberman (alt.)
My notes are pretty sparse here I’m afraid. Trying to get set up, acclimatized, plugged in, up to speed, etc.
Updating conflicts of interest. I mention no longer being an at-large rep. on the Libertarian Party of California ExCom, my only previously listed conflict of interest. Arvin Vohra (fellow LNC at-large rep.) also declares he’s no longer on Maryland executive committee.
I say again I would like to declare my conflict of interest that LP chair Geoff Neale previously ruled out of order. I note that in the event of a discrepancy between the interests of the LP and the interests of the broader libertarian movement (the cause of freedom), I will side with the movement.
Geoff still seems unsure if I recall correctly, but Diana Visek speaks up and says she thinks it’s a good idea to have this from me on the record. Not that I particularly think her reasons for wanting that are “pure”, so to speak, but she may have helped convince Geoff to allow it. I’m asked to write up the wording I want for it, and someone (secretary Dave Blau?)suggests doing it at this meeting, but I end up forgetting so will send it in later.
I never managed to get online at the meeting at all. I guess Paulie got on a little, but the several times I tried, a pay wall came up.
Another reason to get the meetings out of the hotels. We probably could have found a room at a restaurant that had free wi-fi. The hotel wanted $14.99 an hour or some godawful rate I sure as hell wasn’t going to pay.
Still in Vegas, hanging out at a closed McDonald’s using their wi-fi. (I knew McDonald’s was good for something, lol). Perhaps I’ll post a few notes from the meeting if they don’t kick me out first.
@5, 6
It is the last item on today’s agenda. If anyone here in Vegas wans to get down here to observe and possibly comment (if allowed) we are at Planet Hollywood room Sunset 5/6 at the endof the conference center hallway. Late afternoon most likley but if you get here soon you will be more guaranteed not to miss it but if you can only get away for a short timr I am guessing maybe more like around 5 PM
Chris.
Starchild is having sameproblem as rest of us with this slow ass intrenet.
Let’s hope so. I’m sure at least Mr. Pojunis has our best interests at heart.
Will anyone be addressing this mess the LP has on their hands in Nevada?
I’m surprised Starchild hasn’t reported on anything yet.
Talked to Joe during break, his connection sucks also. I don’t think either of us will be able to provide live updates. I will take paper and pen notes and attempt to write it up when I get a chance. Others are welcome to help fill in with live updates if anyone has a non snail-like internet connections and feels like helping.
This is painfully slow (meeting and internet alike) so I will let Joe takeover. Or take back over, which ever. Last thing I’ll say is we are on Secretary’s report getting caught up on old meeting minutes backlog. I’m done for now. Haven’t read what Joe is posting so hopefully he is keeping you all updated.
Just noticed Joe Buchman is providing coverage in the open thread. I just got internet access for the first time in a week and have not caught up on other IPR articles or comment threads, email or anything else. The mifi internet seems to be painfully slow (not all the time but chunks of it) so I would actually rather let Joe continue rather than myself (he has a phone connection which is probably better) although I recommend he does so here rather than in open thread.