Following the July 17th meeting of the Libertarian National Committee in Las Vegas, the Gary Johnson for President campaign is forming an advisory board consisting of “a small group of high profile Libertarians,” according to Johnson staffer Steve Kerbel.
During a Q&A session with Johnson campaign manager Ron Nielson at last weekend’s LNC meeting, Region 1 LNC Representative (and fellow IPR editor) Caryn Ann Harlos and I both expressed concern over the campaign’s messaging and the need to ensure that Gary Johnson is hearing from libertarian advisors.
There have been concerns voiced by members of the radical wing of the Libertarian Party and the larger libertarian movement on IndependentPoliticalReport.com and elsewhere about some of the positions taken by Johnson and Weld, the extent to which the word “libertarian” is used in the campaign’s advertising, and statements made by the candidates.
At the meeting, campaign manager Nielson appeared sensitive to those concerns and willing to address them frankly. On the topic of advisors, he said that the campaign has already been getting advice from the Cato Institute among others and that the libertarian think tank has been of great assistance, but expressed openness to the idea of tapping some Libertarians to serve in a formal advisory capacity.
Two days later I was contacted by Kerbel, himself a former candidate for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination who dropped out of the race prior to the convention to endorse Johnson, and invited to serve as a member of an advisory board that he said he is “assembling for the purpose of providing feedback to the campaign.” In response to my email query, he confirmed that this is being done “as a result of discussions at the LNC meeting”, and named five other individuals whom he said will also be serving on the advisory board, all current or former members of the Libertarian National Committee: Harlos, LP Vice Chair Arvin Vohra, LNC Region 1 Alternate Aaron Starr, LNC Region 7 Alternate Danny Bedwell, and former LNC At-Large Representative Doug Craig.
“We may add a couple more, but we are close to complete,” Kerbel said. “We have some great people involved and if we can all work well together, this will be a benefit for the party and for the campaign.”
# # #
UPDATE #1 (July 22, 1045am PST): Steve Kerbel says he has also added Ben Backus of Nebraska to be on the advisory board, and will be scheduling the first call “in the very near future”. Backus is not currently on the LNC; I believe he may have been at some time in the past, but would need to look that up to confirm one way or the other.
# # #
UPDATE #2 (July 27, late night): The advisory board had our first teleconference this evening, which went for an hour. Tentative plans are to have these calls every Wednesday evening. Campaign point person Steve Kerbel said he will also put us all in touch via email to continue discussion online, where I will bring up the issue of transparency and advocate for LP members to be able to listen in on the conference calls and observe our online discussions.
Besides the individuals mentioned in the original post and first update above, Manny Klausner of the Reason Foundation has also been added to the advisory board. All of the members took part in tonight’s call with the exceptions of Arvin Vohra and Doug Craig who were unavailable.
We had a good discussion about taxation, and ended up making a recommendation that the campaign consider, instead of advocating for replacing the income tax and IRS with a national sales tax (sometimes inaccurately called a “fair” tax), that Gary Johnson instead propose replacing them with an indirect tax levied on state legislatures, with each legislature free to raise the funds by whatever means they chose to adopt. We coupled this idea with the advice that the campaign present this idea as a step toward a more voluntary tax system, in keeping with the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle which recognizes coercive taxation as a form of theft. (Please note this is not the exact wording that Steve Kerbel wrote down; I am paraphrasing from memory.)
Issues mentioned for possible discussion on next Wednesday’s call include opposing the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact, support for Edward Snowden and Internet freedom, and school choice. More broadly, it was also proposed that we look at any issues on which the Johnson campaign has made statements or put out materials at odds with the Libertarian Party’s platform. If you are a libertarian with input on any of these or other issues you would like us to look at, please comment below or contact one of us directly.
starchild: Even just looking at the United States I think we are slowly winning the battle for hearts and minds, and that is more important than the present size of the government.
me: I agree that attitudes are more important than outcomes, since attitudes almost always precede outcomes. However, I have seen no evidence that US hearts and minds are gradually adopting the deontological NAPster approach.
But, I’m open minded.
What evidence is there that a growing number of people either want to abolish all or even most government?
S, yes, the handful of NAPster “radicals” could very well be a palliative.
Robert – I’m not “accepting” a 75% reduction in government, just acknowledging that it may take time to get what we want even under ideal movement conditions (large numbers of radical abolitionists demanding an immediate end to State aggression). Practically speaking, I would be delighted to see a 75% reduction in government in this country even over the next 10 years, but I think that we are more likely to see that kind of progress as the result of a no-compromise libertarian approach demanding a voluntary society now, than if we merely sound slightly more pro-freedom than conventional politicians.
Regarding “50 years of crypto-nonarchist NAPsterism”, I consider your characterization of the past half-century of the libertarian movement to be, to use your phrase, “wildly oversimplified”. At best.
The Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement have not, sadly, been consistently behind the Non-Aggression Principle and demanding radical change during these past decades. Again and again, we have seen party leaders and members (those in leadership seem more prone than others) lured by the siren song of supporting watered-down messaging and big-name less libertarian candidates in a largely unsuccessful quest for big vote totals and quick success, rather than staying true to the ideals of the movement. If we had in fact adhered to those ideals as much as you seem to think we have, I believe we’d be way ahead of where we are now.
As to the State being “much, much bigger now,” in some ways that is true, but in other ways it is not. Considering the entire world – libertarianism is a universalist, worldwide movement, not a nationalist one – I think the picture is favorable compared to where things were half a century ago, and I am optimistic about overall trends. Even just looking at the United States I think we are slowly winning the battle for hearts and minds, and that is more important than the present size of the government.
Finally, as I believe another commenter responded to you somewhere, for all we know, without the agitation of libertarian radicals the U.S. government might by now be even bigger, and the country further down the road to statism, than they are.
Starchild: Demanding that aggression end as soon as possible is a reasonable, even a pragmatic approach, since realistically it will take time to dismantle the coercive State. If enough people were to recognize it as evil and unjust and call for its immediate abolition , perhaps in a year we might have managed to reduce it by 75%. Whereas without such a clear, no-compromise campaign, we might only manage a fraction of that amount of progress over a much longer time period.
Me: Yes, we “might.” I am open to that possibility. I once bought it, in fact, prior to my recovery from Randian/Rothbardianism.
I note that you contradict yourself, accepting 75% and yet claiming to being engaged in a “no-compromise campaign.”
Again, thus far, I see no progress after 50 years of crypto-nonarchist NAPsterism. The State is much, much bigger now. We can be honest and admit that NAPsterism has failed. Or we can hope that somehow large masses of people are going to adopt NAPsterism any day now…a kind of mass radicalization.
In my judgment, this will not happen. (I think for good reason, since NAPsterism is a tautological dogma based on wildly oversimplified assumptions.)
A lessarchist approach is not without its weaknesses. It might not work, either. I would say that the J/W 16 is the first time I’ve seen it reasonably well executed.
Langa: The fact that you apparently disagree, and feel that the “ideal amount” of government is apparently far more than 10% of what we have now, simply demonstrates that you aren’t even close to being a libertarian.
Me: Who said anything about an “ideal amount”? GJ is advocating a 20% cut and I get the sense that he recognizes he won’t get cuts that deep. My sense he’d be lucky to get 5% cuts in the first budget cycle, and that that would be about right.
I don’t do the “ideal” thing. I’m more influenced by Hayek, who recognized that civil societies evolve. As a general principle, I’m a lessarchist until a point is reached where rolling government back becomes counter-productive.
And yes I believe that abolishing all government tomorrow would be worse than the current setup AND that it’s not gonna happen.
L: Finally, the whole point of the alcohol analogy was to debunk your claim that you shouldn’t do anything that would cause a short term increase in suffering.
Me: Since we operate on very different paradigms, I see how you got there…now. Sir/Madam, anyone paying attention will notice that there has, is, and likely will always be suffering. I’m so sorry you read my words in a different way.
I was referring to the likely prevalent zeitgeist before and after any particular move. There will always be dislocations. A 50% — if it could be enacted — would very possibly be SO disruptive that the zeitgeist would go from bad to worse. My sense is that a 20% cut would likely cause the zeitgeist to get shaky, but I believe it’d be survivable. Of course, there’s virtually no way for there to be that big a cut, anyway, so this is all just an inconsequential thought experiment.
J/W are painting a picture of what the next 4 years might be like were they to be elected. The point is to paint a picture that a lot of people see is a positive direction. The idea is to push the envelope without destroying the envelope.
The idea is NOT to engage in science fiction when applying for a 4 year job.
Hope that helps.
Regarding the (off-topic, but interesting) conversation about radicalism and so on, I concur with langa’s post above. While of course we should seek to minimize suffering, sometimes the best way to do this involves some short-term suffering (the example of surgery is a good one).
This doesn’t mean we should necessarily push a button to abolish government overnight if we had that magic option to do so. Such an abrupt reform would likely be unsustainable and thus ultimately unsuccessful.
Calling for an end to legal aggression is not the same thing as pushing this hypothetical button, however. Demanding that aggression end as soon as possible is a reasonable, even a pragmatic approach, since realistically it will take time to dismantle the coercive State. If enough people were to recognize it as evil and unjust and call for its immediate abolition , perhaps in a year we might have managed to reduce it by 75%. Whereas without such a clear, no-compromise campaign, we might only manage a fraction of that amount of progress over a much longer time period.
Please note that I just added a second update to the end of the original article.
Again, IF yours was a solid analogy, and we were living with a 20-drinks-a-day government, life would barely be going on. Syria, Somalia, and N Korea might be approaching a 20-drink setup, where day-to-day life was a constant struggle for survival.
Sheesh.
First, you greatly underestimate the possibility of consuming 20 drinks a day. In fact, the human body metabolizes about one drink per hour, so if you spaced them out right, you could have 20 drinks a day without your BAC ever even going over the legal driving limit.
Second, I chose 20 because that’s approximately ten times the highest amount I have ever heard a doctor recommend as the “ideal amount” of alcohol. Similarly, we currently have at least ten times as much government as the “ideal amount” that I have ever heard any libertarian recommend. The fact that you apparently disagree, and feel that the “ideal amount” of government is apparently far more than 10% of what we have now, simply demonstrates that you aren’t even close to being a libertarian.
Finally, the whole point of the alcohol analogy was to debunk your claim that you shouldn’t do anything that would cause a short term increase in suffering. I could have easily chosen a different example. For instance, when you have major surgery , you often feel much worse for a few days afterward than you did beforehand. Does that mean that having the surgery was a mistake?
more…
In my judgment, 5% would be the outer bounds of what is possible. Anything beyond that is idle speculation.
Indeed, the ask for 20, settle for 5 approach might be damaged by asking for 20. Contra Rothbard, CREDIBILITY matters when negotiating.
Asking for the INcredible really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Langa: Just as getting our hypothetical patient to cut back from 20 drinks a day to 19 drinks a day would likely offer no real benefit to his long term (or even short term) health, neither would cutting government by 5% offer any real improvement in our day to day lives.
Me: Again, IF yours was a solid analogy, and we were living with a 20-drinks-a-day government, life would barely be going on. Syria, Somalia, and N Korea might be approaching a 20-drink setup, where day-to-day life was a constant struggle for survival.
We’re probably living in something like a 40-drinks a week situation. A bender a day or two a week, but most days maybe 2 or 3 drinks.
Even that’s not a great analogy, because “the economy” is such a complex, amorphous, difficult/impossible-to-measure phenomenon. And, while I’m no Keynesian, I do think Keynes was onto something when he talked about “animal spirits.” Despite its choking effects, if J/W were actually to win, propose 20%, and get 5% cuts, that could be just the ticket to righting the ship, getting it going in the lessarchist direction.
As WW said in a recent Reason interview, the dynamic of a L Administration, with Rs and Ds in Congress, could create a virtuous circle/healing dynamic in DC. As GJ also said, they would challenge the Rs and Ds to be good at what they are good at (impulse-wise). A 5% cut would signal “the market” that there has been a SIGNIFICANT change in the country’s direction. Risk-taking might increase, and the incentives to rent-seek might decrease.
Keep in mind, a 5% cut after decades of single-digit increases is a yuuuuge inflection, mathematically speaking. OTOH, my sense is that an overnight 20% cut could be SO dislocating that — while directionally correct and well intentioned — it could be too disruptive, and runs the risk of backfiring.
More dead horse beaters showing up tends to indicate the LP is making progress.
Thanks for playing.
Why not? The LP keeps running the same dead horse candidate.
langa are you still beating your dead horse analogy?
Your 20 drink example is also, sorry, ridiculous. If you want that to be an analogy, you seem to be telling the assembled: “Government has gotten so big, we need no government.”
You still don’t get it. It’s not about no government vs. small government. Different libertarians can disagree about that, just as different doctors can disagree about whether it is better to drink small amounts of alcohol or none at all, while still agreeing that large quantities of alcohol are disastrous. For example, Dr. Mises or Dr. Rand might recommend one drink of government per day. Dr. Friedman or Dr. Hayek might recommend two drinks of government per day. Dr. Rothbard would probably agree with me that we should abstain from drinking any government at all. Yet we can all agree that 20 drinks of government per day is so far from the ideal amount that drastic change is required to correct things.
Just as getting our hypothetical patient to cut back from 20 drinks a day to 19 drinks a day would likely offer no real benefit to his long term (or even short term) health, neither would cutting government by 5% offer any real improvement in our day to day lives. Much, much bigger cuts are needed, and any libertarian should be able to see that, no matter whether they support the eventual elimination of all government or not. In short, I am not criticizing J/W because they aren’t calling for anarchy. Rather, I am criticizing them because they are calling for such trivial changes that they might as well be pushing for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
There is a web site charitynavigators.org that attempts to evaluate other non-profit organizations for their efficiency in using their donations and effectiveness of their programs. Rather then having the LNC try to extract promises from candidates have a broader solution of evaluating all candidates in their financial transparency.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1284
Thanks Jim for the summary of the FEC report (July 25, 2016 at 00:05). That kind of breakdown is very helpful.
As to the question of the Gary Johnson campaign’s outstanding debt liability from 2012, or lack thereof, I confess I remain thoroughly confused. Tom, George, and Steve, you are all very smart, but I can’t readily sort out the truth from your exchange here.
One thing I do know is that Libertarians damn sure ought to be demanding transparency from our candidates so that situations like this don’t arise.
Any financial advantage gained by setting up complicated and confusing campaign finance arrangements is, in my view, outweighed by the negative consequences to the Libertarian Party and the freedom movement of members and supporters not being able to understand what is going on, and therefore not being in a position to accurately compare the relative financial merits of rival candidates for our party’s nomination.
If I had my way, all presidential campaign funding and expenses would be reported line item by line item in plain English to the Libertarian National Committee and published on LP.org, not just buried in FEC reports.
If you have any practical ideas about how to make this happen, please share. Here’s what I’ve come up with:
Give each candidate a pre-nomination questionnaire asking whether s/he would comply with various transparency standards if nominated, and then include their responses in the binders given to convention delegates. I don’t want to make it a contract that candidates would be required to sign, because there would be too much risk of some LNC adding terms that a principled libertarian candidate might have legitimate reasons for rejecting. But I’d like to have an official (but optional) questionnaire, so that LP members could readily see for themselves exactly how much transparency and accountability candidates were willing to commit their campaigns to on the record in writing.
The questions asked should be detailed, and cover topics like reporting requirements, time frames, salary caps, debt, etc., as well as the above-mentioned idea of asking candidates to report all campaign revenues and expenses line by line. Some people say this is unreasonable, but I don’t think it is. No expense or donation is too trivial to be individually reported, because when you start lumping things together into larger categories that’s where stuff can get hidden, and it may easily mean the difference between justified and unjustified. For instance, spending $200 on office supplies might be totally reasonable and acceptable if it was for a whole bunch of pens, paper, printer ink, etc., but unreasonable and unacceptable if it was used to buy a single high-end office chair.
Langa: 5%, huh? Clearly, you miss the whole point of the analogy.
Me: So sorry, L. It’s you who missed my earlier point:
“But, more importantly, most nonarchists are not against “government,” just the coercive State, yes? Alcohol is not poison, per se;…So, unless you have a more elaborate explanation, your analogy doesn’t work for me.”
Your 20 drink example is also, sorry, ridiculous. If you want that to be an analogy, you seem to be telling the assembled: “Government has gotten so big, we need no government.”
Even if SOMEHOW that could be enacted (which, let’s be 100% clear, that has basically no chance of happening), it’s a Mad Max/Planet of the Apes world you point to. Who wants that? How does that possibly work?
Btw, I suspect if someone were drinking 20 drinks a day, they would probably need to be hospitalized. There they might get some drugs (sedatives, perhaps?) to save his or her life.
There is no detox program for a civil society. There’s no place to go to treat the body politic, as the “body” is not a single body, but rather hundreds of millions of bodies with a range of opinions as to how to optimize how we govern ourselves. There’s no “intervention” available.
Rather, there is rhetoric and arguments that we use to attempt to shift the current trajectory. J/W are using lessarchist rhetoric, pretty skillfully thus far.
Master pollster Nate Silver is now predicting J/W gets over 8% of the vote. R state legislators are endorsing GJ and some are even re-registering L.
That one is easy, I would fire you both
Yes you want to reduce the alcohol to zero as quick as possible. But going cold turkey can kill.
Yes, the “Dr. Langa” plan might kill the patient.
But the “Dr. Capozzi” plan will definitely kill the patient.
Yeah, that sounds like HST.
To be honest, two drinks a month is heavy boozing for me these days. But I thought it was a fun riff on Tallulah Bankhead’s line about how easy it is to quit using cocaine (“I’ve done it a thousand times”).
and ya start right out drinking when you first get up….
The Hunter S Thompson biography from Rolling Stones Mag discussed how when they did (i believe) hip surgery on him, they factored in how long they had till he would go into DT’s so they could get the work done and get him back to drinking.
Ah, bullshit. It’s easy to quit drinking cold turkey. I do it every night right before I pass out.
Ianga.
Yes you want to reduce the alcohol to zero as quick as possible. But going cold turkey can kill.
“Seizures may occur in more than 5 percent of untreated patients in acute alcohol withdrawal. Another severe com- plication is delirium tremens (DT’s), which is characterized by hallucinations, mental confusion, and disorientation. The mortality rate among patients exhibiting DT’s is 5 to 25 percent.”
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh22-1/61-66.pdf
5%, huh? Clearly, you miss the whole point of the analogy. Let’s try a different, but similar, scenario.
Imagine a man who currently consumes 20 alcoholic drinks a day, every day. He is worried about his health, so he goes to see me, Dr. Langa. I advise him to immediately quit drinking, cold turkey. I do, however, warn him that this may result in severe withdrawal symptoms, but I explain that, given the damage that he has already done to his body, I feel that such a drastic course of action is necessary.
The man does not like the sound of this, so he goes to seek a second opinion from you, Dr. Capozzi. Unsurprisingly, you are horrified at my “extremist” diagnosis and inform him that I am a quack who got his medical degree from a disreputable school in Alabama. You, on the other hand, have been trained at the finest establishments on the East Coast, and you prescribe a much more “reasonable” course of treatment. You tell him to immediately cut back to 19 drinks a day. Then, after a year, he is to cut back to 18 drinks a day, and so forth. After 20 years, he will be clean and sober, and will suffer absolutely no nasty withdrawal symptoms. Of course, he will almost certainly be dead long before then, but so what?
L, no, we have far too big of a State, in my estimation.
I like GJ’s target of 20% less, and if we get 5-8% less State, I call that very significant progress.
There is some debate about whether drinking small quantities of alcohol is “on balance” good or bad for your health. For example: “While lower quality evidence suggest a cardioprotective effect, no controlled studies have been completed on the effect of alcohol on the risk of developing heart disease or stroke. Excessive consumption of alcohol can cause liver cirrhosis and alcoholism…. The American Heart Association ‘cautions people NOT to start drinking … if they do not already drink alcohol. Consult your doctor on the benefits and risks of consuming alcohol in moderation.’…”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_beverage#Health_effects
Of course, this is talking about a small to moderate amount of alcohol use. Surely even you wouldn’t claim that we have a small to moderate amount of government. If one to two drinks a day is analogous to minarchy, I would say we currently drink somewhere around 20 bottles of “200 proof government” a day. Surely, no doctor would recommend continuing to drink 20 bottles of moonshine a day, just to avoid withdrawal symptoms.
L: So, you would advise an alcoholic to “cure” his hangover by guzzling more booze, since doing so would “abate his suffering” in the short term, right?
me: Specifically, I would not advise anything, since I have no expertise in that area. I have heard that some who have a hangover have taken to drinking a Bloody Mary to alleviate a hangover, but I rarely get hangovers and I’ve never tried this Bloody Mary approach; I don’t even like Bloody Marys.
But, more importantly, most nonarchists are not against “government,” just the coercive State, yes? Alcohol is not poison, per se; in fact, I’ve read that drinking in moderation can actually be healthy, on balance. It, as GJ likes to say, can take the edge off, though he swears off the stuff.
So, unless you have a more elaborate explanation, your analogy doesn’t work for me.
On a highly speculative basis, it may be theoretically possible (over time) to shrink and possibly even eliminate the State while maintaining a government(s). I certainly advocate trying to do so. I’d prefer to do so with wisdom, minimizing negative dislocations while allowing freedom, peace, and prosperity to grow, benefiting most if not all.
You in? 😉
I have also heard it claimed that it is “almost impossible” to quit smoking cold turkey. Nevertheless, I did so, after smoking approximately 2 packs a day for about 10 years, and it was basically a piece of cake. (The reason, I believe, is because I sincerely wanted to quit, unlike many people who, despite their rhetoric, are actually trying to quit because of pressure from others, or the belief that they “should” quit, even though they don’t actually want to quit.)
I believe for serious alcoholics that the recommendation is not to go cold turkey on your own.
“When all is said and done, many addicts will try to quit at some point, but many fail when they lack a properly structured detox program. Quitting drug or alcohol abuse is difficult, because improperly detoxing can cause withdrawal symptoms that are difficult to overcome without medical help. These withdrawal symptoms can include physical discomfort, hallucinations, and seizures that make it hard to stay off the addictive substance. Heart attacks, severe overheating, and hypoglycemia can also be a problem.”
Ending the State tomorrow in my judgment would almost certainly lead to far more suffering than there was yesterday. I advocate less suffering, not more. NAPsterism implies more suffering in the short term. It’s not attractive, since I believe most of humanity desires suffering abatement.
So, you would advise an alcoholic to “cure” his hangover by guzzling more booze, since doing so would “abate his suffering” in the short term, right?
steve m,
Likewise.
Gary Johnson is a big ol’ poopyhead.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
Tom and George,
What I like about the two of you is your intellect, your wit and your demand of such from others.
I have to give it to you, Steve:
Your efforts to rehabilitate Johnson & Co. have been nothing short of heroic.
Completely without success to anyone who’s paying attention, but heroic nonetheless.
So congratulations, I guess.
Not true George. That implies the mailing list had no value. I would say that the Johnson 2101 Campaign didn’t pay about 700K that they were supposed to. Promised is a problematic term in that invoices were being submitted so late. I suspect that the vendors share a good deal of the blame.
Perry> If my campaign raised between 1 to 1.5 million dollars I would be doing a lot better then at least one of the candidates on this stage who still owes about 1.4 million dollars.
Nielson held the largest Debt of the campaign. How can Perry when talking about the Johnson 2012 Debt not mostly be talking about Nielson and then leaving out that Nielson and Johnson had come to terms. Well before the debate.
12/31/2015 Debt Settlement Plan
02/03/2016 RFAI: Debt Settlement First Notice
03/24/2016 Debt Settlement Plan
then in April the Debate.
The RFAI was not a rejection of the Debt Settlement plan it was a request that the numbers in it get fixed and some explanations provided. Which apparently was provided by March 3rd.
In any event, it is indubitably the case that Johnson 2012 did not pay the money it had promised, in the amount of one and a half million dollars or so.
Tom,
let me help you with your reading comprehension
“The Commission did not approve, by the required four votes, the Audit staffs
recommendation. “
“and they did so on June 18th,2015 well before the April 2016 Florida debate.”
That issue did not come up in the Florida debate. For starters, it was a matter between the FEC and Nielson.
” the truth is the 2016 debts had mostly been settled by the April debate. ” That’s simply false. Some of the creditors had offered to accept minimal payments, in some cases but not others ‘zero”, but there is no settlement without FEC approval. Such approval has not happened, so the debts have not been settled.
In fact, the first Johnson proposal was rejected (an RFAI was issued) by the FEC.
Steve,
The holdup on settling debts is that the 2012 Johnson campaign racked up $1.5 million in debt knowing the terms under which that debt could be settled, and have been trying to weasel out of settling it ever since. Darryl pointing out that that’s what they were doing is no more “using the power of the government” than is a person pointing at someone shooting at people and saying “hey, that guy is shooting at people.”
Steve,
If the FEC voted against their auditors, why does your report say that they did exactly the opposite?
But, if the hold up on settling the debts is the Government delay what does this say about the Libertarian Wing of the Libertarian Party Candidate using the power of the government to hold up such a settlement?
I am more then amused.
“And you didn’t mention that at the time Darryl W. Perry truthfully asserted the facts concerning the Johnson campaigns’ debt and Johnson lied out his ass about it, ”
Why would do that when it is not true? the truth is the 2016 debts had mostly been settled by the April debate. That FEC had audited the Johnson 2016 and completed their final report. It does interestingly state that there were invoices submitted way late. Like I had suggested earlier. The debt plan had been in place for months awaiting FEC review. Not a Johnson 2012 or 2016 problem. That the law allows the debt to be retired legally.
and they did so on June 18th,2015 well before the April 2016 Florida debate.
Tom,
Factually you are wrong. The FEC has voted that against their auditors and have ruled that Nielson has complied with the law.
Tom,
You mean reports with statements such as this.
On June 18,2015, the Commission considered the Audit Division Recommendation
Memorandum in which the Audit staff recommended the Commission find that NSON
made a prohibited contribution to GJ2012 by extending credit beyond the normal course
of business and not making commercially reasonable attempts to collect $1,752,032 from
GJ2012 for services rendered.
The Commission did not approve, by the required four votes, the Audit staffs
recommendation. Some Commissioners voted to approve the Audit staffs
recommendation. Others did not, stating that they deemed the affidavit from Mr.
Nielson, contracts showing substantially similar terms offered to other clients, accounts
receivable aging schedules for both GJ2012 and other clients, and invoices for interest
charged by NSON on outstanding debt sufficient to document that the billing practices
were normal and usual.
And that’s all well and good. You’re leaving a few things out, though.
You mention that “The Commission will review each proposal to forgive a debt to ensure that the creditor, the ongoing committee and the candidate have complied with the Act’s contribution limits and prohibitions.”
You don’t mention that the result of the Commissions review was a ruling that the creditors and/or the ongoing committee and/or the candidate had NOT so complied.
You didn’t mention that the creditors knew they were selling goods or services to a political campaign committee and that there were rules governing such sales.
You didn’t mention that the campaign knew it was spending money it didn’t have when it spent that money and has now spent four years trying to find a way to get out of paying its debts.
You didn’t mention that the campaign reported its debt as a full order of magnitude — nearly a million dollars — lower than it actually was right before its candidate received the LP’s presidential nomination, at a time when delegates HAD EXPRESSED and WERE EXPRESSING concern about the possible effects of even the lower reported debt on a general election campaign.
And you didn’t mention that at the time Darryl W. Perry truthfully asserted the facts concerning the Johnson campaigns’ debt and Johnson lied out his ass about it, it was unclear — as it still is — whether the FEC would let slide the slimy maneuver of pretending that the same campaign, with the same candidate and the same manager, at the time operating from the same address, was a different organization for the purpose of trying to weasel out of its debt.
Tom and George,
Either you are claiming the 2012 debt is a liability for the 2016 efforts or you are not? It has to be one of the or the other.
I am claiming that
a) the 2016 contributions can not legally be used to pay of 2012 debt. and thus the 2012 debt has no implication on the 2016 efforts. Which Perry implied that they did.
b) that the vast majority of the creditors had accepted settlements and that these settlements are legal and reflect the reality at the time of the April debate.
These were signed sealed and delivered if the FEC wants to take for ever to agree so be it. That looking back through the FEC reports that the time limit of 24 months had been met.
Frankly Tom, I would be highly amused if the Anarchist branch of the Libertarian Party was taking such a statist position as to say that debts are not settled unless the Government agrees they are settled.
May the committee sell campaign assets?
Generally, when a campaign sells its property, the
purchase is considered a contribution to the campaign
by the purchaser. The payment, therefore, must not come
from prohibited sources and must not exceed the contribution
limits.
Under limited circumstances, however, the sale of a
campaign asset does not result in a contribution.
Mailing Lists. Mailing lists developed by a campaign
for its own use may be sold at the “usual and normal”
charge without the purchaser making a contribution. See,
for example, AOs 2002-14, 1982–41 and 1981–53.
Liquidation of Equipment and Supplies. The Commission
has said that the sale of campaign equipment and
supplies does not result in a contribution under certain
conditions. AOs 2003-19 and 1986–14.
• A description of the steps taken by the creditor to obtain
payment, along with a comparison of those remedies
with others pursued by the creditor under similar
circumstances; and
• An indication that the creditor has forgiven other debts
involving nonpolitical debtors in similar circumstances.
11 CFR 116.8(b).
Commission Review. The Commission will review
each proposal to forgive a debt to ensure that the creditor,
the ongoing committee and the candidate have complied
with the Act’s contribution limits and prohibitions.
11 CFR 116.8(c).
• The committee owes debts to other creditors of such
magnitude that the creditor could reasonably conclude
that the ongoing committee will not pay its particular
debt; or
• The creditor is unable, after reasonable diligence, to
locate the ongoing committee. 11 CFR 116.8(a).
Notification to Commission. A creditor who intends to
forgive a debt owed by an ongoing committee must notify
the Commission of its intent in writing. In addition
to demonstrating that the ongoing committee is eligible
for debt-forgiveness, the letter must provide the following
information:
• The terms of the initial extension of credit and a
description of the terms under which the creditor has
extended credit to similar nonpolitical debtors;
• A description of the campaign’s efforts to satisfy the
debt;
Several as in 2. for $72K
So no, not according to the people “owed” the money the settlements have been voluntarily reached.
Is an ongoing committee eligible for debt-forgiveness?
Yes, under certain circumstances. A creditor may
forgive a debt owed by an ongoing committee (that is,
one that does not qualify as a terminating committee) if
the debt has been outstanding at least 24 months and the
ongoing committee (1) has insufficient cash on hand to
pay the debt, (2) has had receipts of less than $1,000 and
disbursements of less than $1,000 during the previous 24
months and (3) either:
“Factually Perry was wrong.”
Factually Perry was irrefutably correct.
“His bring it up, I believe, was to gain political advantage.”
My GOD. Are you suggesting that in a political debate, a candidate said something to gain political advantage? THE NERVE of that guy!
What about the $300,000 and something owed back to the FEC?
Perry was right. Some of the debtors had offered to accept nothing in payment, but there is a process to ensure that these offers are not illegal corporate campaign contributions. The process has not advanced. Some of the debtors had offered to take nothing, but those offers are still outstanding, and may be rejected as a result of the legal process. Also, several debtors have not yet settled, thought they may yet do so.
As of this date Johnson 2012 still owes 1.4 million, and then some.
Perry> If my campaign raised between 1 to 1.5 million dollars I would be doing a lot better then at least one of the candidates on this stage who still owes about 1.4 million dollars.
Johnson> that’s not true
I leave it up to the readers or listeners to ascertain what Perry was talking about if it wasn’t whether or not old debt hadn’t been settled and needed to be carried as a liability for the current campaign?
From documents field with the FEC March 24 2016 where 7 of the 9 creditors had accepted settlements.
Factually Perry was wrong. His bring it up, I believe, was to gain political advantage. Now did Perry intentionally lie or was it that his data was just old and out of date? But as of the Florida April debate it wasn’t the truth. Unless you believe that the Government should have a say in how individuals may voluntarily settle their debts and obligations. Which I trust Perry would think the government shouldn’t have such as say.
steve m: No, I was there, too. Perry did not make such a claim. Nor was there such an implication.
On the bright side, Johnson is being consistent in his campaign spending practices. He is still spending large parts of the total income on campaign consultants.
Read the document Andy. Yes the majority of the People owed the money have agreed not get get paid.
It is all there in the document.
So where is the money going to come from to pay off the 2012 debts, or is the plan to just not pay them?
I disagree. Perry was implying that Johnson 2016 donations would be used to pay of Johnson 2012 debts. Johnson disputed this. I believe that Gary Johnson was technically correct. Now if Johnson was correct, then it would have been Perry who was lying.
Please see the fec report and settlement plan. Notice, each page has a listing of a debt and an offer and a signature accepting the offer by the organization that the debt is held by. If the creditors have accepted the settlement then the issue is with getting the FEC to accept what the creditors have agreed to.
There is one area in dispute and that is the 300K that the government wants back.
docquery.fec.gov/pdf/486/201605090300073486/201605090300073486.pdf
I didn’t say that Gary lied about his fundraising in the Florida debate. I said that he lied about his campaign finances in the Florida debate. Specifically, when Darryl W. Perry alluded to his outstanding $1.5 million in campaign debt, Gary went berserk and just no-shit, flat-out lied his ass off about it.
You are completely entitled to your opinion Andy, I just happen to think you overstate it.
Tom,
The Florida Debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9J9qi-jynk
Watch at about 34:54 and then again at 37:13
I presume this is where your claim comes from. What explicitly do you think Johnson lied about in his fund raising? That he might get 40 million over night if things line up? Which seems improbable since the largest one total I can find is about 6 million. but saying could… is a lot different then saying we did….
Should read, “and urinating…”
Steve, they are either watering down AMD urinating on the Libertarian message/platform, or they are not. The facts clearly indicate that they are (see the CNN Town Hall for example).
Tom,
This claim.
“Gary lied about his campaign finances in public as late as a couple of months before the nomination, in the Florida candidate debate.”
Which claim?
I would request clarification of why the hell you thought I would be interested in betting on a position I didn’t take.
citations to the evidence backing your claim Tom?
for the bet I would propose that the accuracy of the donations could be statistically verified using the names listed. we go through the list of names in comparison to next months fec report and find say 50 that appear in the report (donations larger then $200). if they don’t reasonably match the times and dates reported on the web site you win. If they do I win.
I would ask that if I win, you take a Johnson/Weld sign and stand on at a busy cross street in your home town during Rush hour and respectfully hold the sign in an upright and readable was to the moving traffic.
I wonder what you would request if I won?
Steve,
Gary lied about his campaign finances in public as late as a couple of months before the nomination, in the Florida candidate debate.
There’s a point at which “ignore the smell of ammonia, that’s rain, I’m not pissing down your back” loses its credibility.
I don’t think they lied about their fundraising. The issues were about how much they spent and how they spent it and how so much debt occurred appeared months after the election was over. I mentioned earlier that given the quality of the videos the campaign has produced this cycle and am adding now their web page I don’t see how $221,817 paid to consultants would cover these costs. So maybe the committee doesn’t add debt until invoices are submitted. If invoices were submitted months after the election then they wouldn’t appear in the FEC reports until then. So what you call a lie might more reasonably be called late invoices.
I have had experience with vendors doing this. I suspect to delay payments until after the new year to postpone tax payments. But from my perspective, that meant that I couldn’t write them off as a cost in the year they occurred. I was rather livid with these vendors.
Steve,
What’s there to wager on? It’s either accurate or it isn’t. I don’t claim to know. What I do know is that Johnson’s last campaign lied about its finances. So I take all its claims with a certain amount of salt.
if they are cheating they are going to a lot of trouble to do so. They are showing over 3300 contributions in 10 days to reach the 215k they are at. so an average of $65 per donation.
Care to wager on the Money Comet Accuracy Tom?
“The Johnson/Weld money comment has raised 215K in a week.”
Maybe. But since we’ve caught Johnson’s campaigns lying about campaign finances before, the proper formulation is really “The Johnson/Weld campaign claims that its money comet has raised 215k in a week.”
Maybe that number is accurate.
Or maybe a year from now they’ll amend that number an order of magnitude downward, just like Johnson amended his campaign debt an order of magnitude upward between April 2012 and April 2013.
you might want to lay off the sour grapes Andy
The Johnson/Weld money comment has raised 215K in a week.
comet-johnsonweld2016.nationbuilder.com
It is not a good accomplishment because as Tom pointed out on another thread, discontent with the major parties has gotten so high that we could probably run Mr. Potato Head for President, and Mr. Potato Head would poll higher than average for LP candidates, and because they are watering down and urinating on the Libertarian platform/message in the campaign.
The strings could be, “I will donate, just as long as you do not promote some kind of ‘crazy’ libertarian message.” (Note that what people like this would consider to be a “crazy” libertarian message is what most of us would consider to be the standard libertarian message.)
So 20 million divided by 2500 = 8000 individual contributions. To be in the top 1% you need an annual income of about 350K. so 2.5 K is going to be well under 1% of the income of the top 1%. There are going to be about 1 million households that make up that 1%. So if 1 in 100 of these 1 million households makes a 2,500 donations then you get 10,000 donations and 25 million.
If Johnson is polling 10% then this seems very reasonable as an accomplishment.
“Will the NON-libertarian donors want to donate money to a campaign that is under the Libertarian Party label, and if they do, what kind of strings will they attach to their donations?”
The apparent answer is yes, that Johnson/Weld are raising money beyond what Libertarians normally donate. Ok I am not going to list names of contributors. But there is in the July Report one individual who looks like he has donated over his life time over half a million to predominantly Republican causes, candidates, political action committees. Including RNC, RNSC, John McCain 2008, Buch for Pres 2000, Mitt Romney 2012.
And now 2700 to Johnson/Weld.
are there strings attached? well if you are concerned that Johnson/Weld might win then you might be concerned. Otherwise the strings wouldn’t be binding on the Libertarian Party.
Well, obviously nobody has ever raised the kind of money Johnson/Weld contemplate raising for a Libertarian campaign (Clark/Koch 1980 was largely funded by Koch himself, and even that’s not even close to the kind of money Johnson/Weld are talking about).
If they manage it, it will be the first time.
Of course, there’s a first time for everything, isn’t there?
“Will the NON-libertarian donors want to donate money to a campaign that is under the Libertarian Party label, and if they do, what kind of strings will they attach to their donations?”
The theory underlying the Johnson/Weld fundraising strategy seems to be that #NeverTrump GOP donors will write checks to Johnson/Weld because Johnson/Weld is not Trump/Pence.
I don’t see that happening at the scale Johnson/Weld claim to be aiming for, but I could be wrong.
I do think there might be an interesting effect in terms of the whole “pushing the GOP in a libertarian direction” theory. If “libertarian-leaning” donors who usually write checks to the GOP ticket write checks to Johnson/Weld instead this year, it might incentivize a “libertarian-leaning” GOP candidate to run in 2020 and explicitly seek the backing of those donors for initial campaign funding.
Even if Weld has raised that, the point remains that he raised that for NON-libertarian Republican campaigns. Weld did not raise any money for any kind of libertarian campaigns. The people who donated money to his efforts were NOT libertarians.
Will the NON-libertarian donors want to donate money to a campaign that is under the Libertarian Party label, and if they do, what kind of strings will they attach to their donations?
Johnson claims the Weld had raised more like 250 million.
http://www.wben.com/Libertarians-Nominate-Gary-Johnson-for-President/22759964
“Then we can leverage that to a level where we could wage political war” by hiring staff and running TV and radio commercials, Johnson said. He said Weld will help in this effort, having raised about $250 million during his political career compared to Johnson’s $8 million. Weld, 70, was Massachusetts governor from 1991 to 1997, also as a Republican.
Here is where I got my 20 million number from
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/11/politics/gary-johnson-fundraising-libertarian-party/
Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson said Saturday his ticket is moving toward raising the $20 million that he says is needed to launch a competitive presidential bid — even though he had a paltry $15,000 in the bank as of his most recent campaign finance report.
“When I interviewed you and former Gov. (Bill) Weld just a couple of weeks ago, we noted that you had at the last filing period about $15,000 on hand. Frankly, that’s not enough to buy you a good used car,” CNN’s Victor Blackwell told Johnson. “But Gov. Weld said that you need $20 to $30 million to really get into the conversation and for people to take you seriously. How’s that progress? Are you raising the big-dollar donations that you would need to get to this $20 to $30 million threshold that Gov. Weld said?”
Sorry, the embed didn’t work on the last comment because I wasn’t logged in.
“Also, I think you are mistaken about what Johnson said. He said that he had raised around $8 millions (for his Republican and Libertarian campaigns for 2012, and for his two campaigns for Governor of New Mexico in the 1990’s), and that Bill Weld had raised about 3 times that amount for political campaigns, which comes out to about $24 million.”
The number I’ve heard Johnson use twice — once at the convention, IIRC, the other about one minute into the YouTube video of the interview with the New York Times editorial board — is about $226 million higher than the number you propose:
Tom, I have not been able to find any evidence of William Weld having raised large sums of money (in line with the amounts discussed).
Also, I think you are mistaken about what Johnson said. He said that he had raised around $8 millions (for his Republican and Libertarian campaigns for 2012, and for his two campaigns for Governor of New Mexico in the 1990’s), and that Bill Weld had raised about 3 times that amount for political campaigns, which comes out to about $24 million.
I’d be interested in how one could learn how much money Individual X has raised for political candidates, causes, etc. Apart from being listed in connection with a PAC or something, or being credited as a “bundler” by a campaign, it seems like it would be very difficult.
Gary Johnson has said at least twice in my hearing that Weld has raised somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter billion dollars for political campaigns. Whether that’s true or not, and if so how the number was arrived at or how the number reached Johnson’s ears, I have no idea.
I have not seen any evidence that William Weld is a great fundraiser. Sure, he got elected Governor of Massachusetts twice, and that took money, but that was 20 plus years ago, and he was a Republican, not a Libertarian.
Weld raised a little over $100,000 for George W. Bush, which is a relatively large amount of money, but is chump change for a presidential race, not to mention the fact that this was NOT a libertarian campaign.
Weld is a connected guy (as in he is connected to the ruling establishment), as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but other than his campaigns for Governor 20 plus years ago, I see no evidence of him having raised much money, and he has ZERO record of ever having raised money for any kind of libertarian campaign.
Super PACs only came into existence circa 2010 with the Citizens United v. FEC and Speechnow.org v. FEC Supreme Court decisions, so this is only the second presidential election which they’ve had the capacity to impact.
Presumably over time politics-watchers will come up with some kind of multiplier/divisor rule of thumb as to how effective Super PAC spending is, dollar for dollar, versus principal campaign committee spending.
My own perception is that a Super PAC can potentially accomplish a LOT more with its money, if for no other reason than that it can play at smashmouth politics without nearly the blowback a candidate suffers when he or his principal committee blow it on that particular playing field.
On the other hand, at least some Super PACs seem to be largely ways of funneling money to the organizers and staffs of the PACs themselves, which would reduce any aggregate/pro rata efficiency of Super PACs as such.
For the moment, I’d say it’s reasonable/plausible to treat a dollar of Super PAC spending as if it were 50 cents of direct campaign spending for purposes of answering the question “how much money is behind this campaign versus previous campaigns?”
inflation adjusting.
using 3 million for 1980 would be 8.6 million in 2016. so 3.x is probably close to 10 million today
1996 300k about 450K today
2000 610K about 850K
2004 133k about 170k
2008 376K about 421k
2012 572K about 600K
and 2016 1.364 million
so inflation adjusted half a million above what was raised in 2000 not including the 1.1 million raised by the pro Johnson super packs
Bob,
It’s been awhile since I looked up the exact numbers, but inflation-adjusted to (IIRC) 2010, about $10 million (it was $3.x million at the time, presumably all except maybe the .x coming from Koch).
Of course, Johnson/Weld have potential “force multipliers” at hand — greater name recognition, an election cycle that’s chaotic in a particular way lending itself to attention for third party alternatives, etc. So they might be able to do more at the polling place with less money.
tk, what did Clark/Koch raise and spend, and how much of that was from Koch?
“it is still WAY below the kind of money that they claimed that they’d raise”
In defense of Johnson/Weld on that particular count:
1) Libertarian presidential nomination candidates almost always paint the rosiest picture they can of their post-nomination prospects. If not on likely donation figures, on other things. For example, Badnarik 2004: “If I can win the nomination, I can win the election.”
2) My recollection of news accounts since the convention is that at least two large PACS have made seven-figure spending commitments on behalf of the campaign which would not appear in the FEC reports as donations TO the campaign.
3) The period for this report ended on June 30th. No telling how much has been raised since then.
4) The big idea here is that William Weld is a good fundraiser, but in terms of having stuff to work with, the big fundraising period would be after the two major parties have officially nominated their candidates — he swoops in and offers disappointed people with money another candidate to spend their money on.
All that said, my expectation is that the Johnson campaign will raise less than $10 million (which, inflation-adjusted, will be less than Clark/Koch raised and spent in 1980).
Starchild: Can aggression ever be virtuous?
Me: All things considered, I say Yes. Ending the State tomorrow in my judgment would almost certainly lead to far more suffering than there was yesterday. I advocate less suffering, not more. NAPsterism implies more suffering in the short term. It’s not attractive, since I believe most of humanity desires suffering abatement.
S: Perhaps very rarely yes – libertarianism is not synonymous with virtue.
Me: My L-ism is all about virtue and the practice of wisdom. It’s one of the many reasons I dropped my Randian/Rothbardianist views, after long consideration.
S: But in most cases aggression is bad and wrong, like violence but even more so.
Me: As an Originalist L (more influenced by Lao Tzu than Rand/Rothbard), I come at these sorts of questions from a different paradigm. Have you pondered the yin-yang? If so, that helps to understand the ontological approach.
Jim, these numbers should be adjusted to reflect inflation.
Also, is the money being spent effectively? What kind of message is the campaign promoting? Are they inspiring people to become libertarians?
Spending what sounds like a lot of money is not necessarily an indicator of success.
Through June 30:
$306,246 Browne 1996
$609,944 Browne 2000
$132,448 Badnarik 2004
$376,033 Barr 2008
$571,888 Johnson 2012
$1,363,525 Johnson 2016
Total January 1 – December 31
$901,256 Browne 1996
$1,616,777 Browne 2000
$1,067,782 Badnarik 2004
$1,405,903 Barr 2008
$2,218,466 Johnson 2012
$1,363,525 Johnson 2016 (through June 30)
By the end of July Johnson will have raised more money than all of the other candidates listed above for their entire campaigns, with the possible exception of his own campaign in 2012.
But the if the size of the National Libertarian convention is any indicator I suspect activism will be up significantly.
For effect on activism rates the LNC and state parties would know better then I.
Yep well below what you claim they claimed. And well below the numbers I have heard. So check back in in about a month.
Yeah, but it is still WAY below the kind of money that they claimed that they’d raise. Also, how is the money being spent, and what kind of message is the campaign promoting? How many people are they inspiring to become libertarian activists?
Also, when comparing to past campaigns, keep in mind that there has been inflation.
From memory Badnarik raised a bit over a million and Barr raised about 1.5 million. So 2016 is well Ave average. The goal for 2016 I thought was 20 million. Which is a possible number. But they need to significantly step up the rate they are raising it at. Going on right now is their comet bomb which is above 150k and a Hollywood fund raiser which reportedly raised above 100k.
That fundraising figure from June is above average for an LP presidential campaign, but it still is not much for a presidential campaign compared to what the D’s and R’s spend, and it is a FAR CRY from being the kind of money that Johnson/Weld supporters claimed that they would raise during the convention (a lot of them were claiming that they would raise $200-$250 million).
Starchild “…I still don’t see where George got all his numbers… it would be helpful if you’d include the specific FEC links. Not doubting your numbers, but that way other people can go and see for themselves, and know better where to look. Share knowledge, build the farm team.”
http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteFilingsPDFDownload.do?imageNumber=201607209021703740&pdfURL=docquery.fec.gov/pdf/740/201607209021703740/201607209021703740.pdf
It’s 218 pages. Pages 1 – 7 is just the summary. It contains the same information that steve m posted in the link above. Pages 8 – 198 are donors who met the reporting requirement threshold, listed 3 per page. Name, address, employer, amount given, date given, etc. Pages 199 – 218 are the itemized disbursements on which George Phillies reported. Included with the name, date, and amount is a section for “Purpose of Disbursement.”
You can find earlier months by clicking on the “filings” tab here: http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=C00605568&tabIndex=3
sheesh, the 664K was 5 times what was raised in july 2012
as a summary of Libertarian President asperations
the Johnson Weld efforts raised 664K at bit over what johnson raised in June 2012
The LNC raised $359K about 2 times what they did in June of 2012
There are two super pacs out there potentially supporting Johnson/Weld that have combined raised about 1.1 Million in June 2016
to get to 20 million in five months you need to average 4 million a month.
In July 2012 Johnson raised about 350K if that 5 times multiplier holds they will raise about 1.75 million this July.
Starchild and other interested folks…
The FEC reports are in 3 sections
a summery which has how much cash they had at the start of the month. How much they raised. How much they spent. and How much they had at the end.
a donation section is for itemized donations I think those over $250? where the fec wants to know who gave you the money, what they do and who they work for.
This is interesting if you want to see what industries and companies are funding a politician
The section that Dr Phillies reports the most about is how the money is spent. George reports that political consultants were paid $221,817. But considering the quality of the Johnson Videos coming out this last month I am wondering why they didn’t cost more?
Thanks Steve for the FEC link. I’m glad to hear Johnson raised over five times as much as during similar period in 2012. Anything else of interest in that link that you think deserves attention? I still don’t see where George got all his numbers, but I’m not great at reading these government forms, to which I have an instinctive aversion like seeing rotten food.
Robert – I think violence in general is bad and wrong. Are there instances where it may be justified as a “lesser evil”? Sure. And few of us have the moral cajones of a Jesus of Nazareth or a Gandhi, to consistently practice satyagraha even if we considered it 100% desirable.
Does this mean that all calls to simply “end war”, “stop the violence”, etc., deserve to be attacked for their “deontological weakness”, and that people advocating for these things should be dismissed as making “wild overstatements”? I say no.
It seems to me that taking an uncompromising stance on the Non-Aggression Principle being the basis for public policy should be viewed in a similar light. You acknowledge that the “sentiment behind the NAP is true” and “maximizing freedom is virtuous”. Can aggression ever be virtuous? Perhaps very rarely yes – libertarianism is not synonymous with virtue. But in most cases aggression is bad and wrong, like violence but even more so.
So I think a broadly stated campaign to “end aggression” is not misplaced. Publicly attacking those who neglect to qualify their calls for non-aggression by stating that some aggression, somewhere, may be justifiable, is not pragmatic. It is counter-productive.
Starchild,
I Posted this earlier in the open thread for July 2016
June FEC report for Johnson 2016 is now available.
$664,293.66 was raised from 6-1 to 6-30 in 2016
in comparison for the same time period in 2012 Johnson raised $124104.64
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00605568/1089615/
Thanks for this info, George. When you post stuff like this however, it would be helpful if you’d include the specific FEC links. Not doubting your numbers, but that way other people can go and see for themselves, and know better where to look. Share knowledge, build the farm team.
Are you saying that Joe Hunter received $25,000 just for July, or did that payment covering a longer period of services simply occur in July? Or can you tell?
Perhaps give him advice on this:
For July, 2016, the Johnson campaign began with $175,574 Cash on Hand . The campaign had receipts of $664,293, made disbursements during the month of $380,886, and ended July with $458,981 cash on hand at the end of the month.
What were the reported disbursements? They totalled, according to the downloadablefile of the campaign finance report, $380,886. Where did to money go?
There was political activity: The campaign gave $86,194 to Alita Grafx and Sign Wise for signage, signs, bumper stickers, buttons, T-shirts, and related items. The campaign spent $6892 on air travel, and one trip by train. No Monkey received $500 for website hosting.
$20,000 went the the Libertarian National Committee for ballot access. Specialists included $7950 to McCauley and Associates for accounting, $5600 to Aristotle International for Software, and $2000 to DB Capitol Strategies for Legal Consulting.
Money handling included $14,082 to WePay for Merchant Processing, $235 in contribution refunds, and $148 to Wells Fargo for Bank fees.
Nathan Grabau and Constance Hannigan-Franck received between them $2787 for Media relations. John Vaught received received $1403 for Media Relations. For “Grassroots Advocacy”, Andy Craig, Charles Frohman, and Apollo Pazell received $3000, $5500, and $2000, respectively. Media and grassroots efforts thus totalled to $14,690. Buried in there someplace is $593 of “Food for Meetings”.
Then there were the campaign consultants. For “Campaign Consulting”, Edward Ashley received $1250, Christopher Thrasher received $2367, and First Place Campaigns of Chicago, Illinois received $7000.
For Press Relations consulting, Joe Hunter received $25,000.
Last but decidedly not least, Liberty Consulting Services of Salt Lake City received $186,200 for Campaign consulting.
The people and firms called “consulting” thus received $221,817, while “media” and “grassroots received an additional $14,690.
Totalling it all up, consultants and media people received 62% of campaign spending. Signage, web pages, and other outreach items came to 30% of campaign spending. The last 8% of campaign spending went for back office operations, such as merchant fees.
AJ, ya know, whether it’s a matter specifically of seen/unseen, I can’t say. But what you suggest makes some sense to me. That there have been extremist NAPsters in the Public Square making Soap Box-type cases for crypto-nonarchy may well have been of some consequence in the sense that things would be even less free had they not been making noise.
My view is that the truth does set us free. As an approach, it always works, although not necessarily immediately so. Statism is shot through with untruth, so while it has continued to win in the Public Square, extremist NAPsters have made an untrue counter-argument that has enough truth in it that it may well have checked and slowed the growth of the State.
The sentiment behind the NAP is true. Maximizing freedom is virtuous. The case for lessarchism is at the same time weakened by the wild overstatements that Ls are prone to make, due to the fundamental defects in deontological NAPsterism.
I’d like to see the LM check its premises, for I suspect honest inquiry will reveal that NAPsterism’s foundational mistakes, which are easily correctable IF there’s a willingness to look at the mistakes with an open mind.
Robert, there is the seen and there is the unseen. How much worse would things be right now if there had been zero libertarian activism during that same time period? I suspect that things would be worse, as in government would be even bigger and more tyrannical than it is now.
Starchild, I consider myself a libertarian, but I don’t subscribe to the NAP (especially the deontological approach taken by most NAPsters) being the only def of L. I view NAPsterism to be a branch of L thought.
Since there’s been an L movement (NAPster dominated) for 50 or so years, and since government controls more, not less, of our lives, that’s my case for little to no consequence. The only are where I think Ls have been of minor consequence is weed legalization. Not much of a record, in my view.
Robert – Why the strange term “NAPsterism”? There is a much more widely used term to describe adherence to the Non Aggression Principle, and that is libertarianism.
As to the notion that libertarianism is of “almost no consequence”, I think it is so obviously false that it requires no refutation.
rc, yep and keep stressing that both Johnson and Weld worked with legislatures dominated by the Democrats and got things done so well that they were re-elected by large margins. If you wan’t to end Washington DC grid lock…
sm, agreed. If he stays on message, keeps it general, keeps pounding home that the Rs and Ds are divisive, repeating that the L ticket has 2 2-term R guvs from blue states, he can steer clear of the weeds and come across as Jimmy Stewart vs. Biff Tannen vs. Lady MacBeth.
Could work.
All Johnson has to do is be pleasant and let the other two rip holes in each other…
Andy,
I agree that Weld representing the LP in a televised debate would be a bad thing, but for different reasons.
Weld would probably do a good job of representing something other than what the Libertarian Party stands for.
Johnson would just do a piss-poor job of representing whatever it was that he did represent.
starchild: …as much as you Robert like to look down your nose at it. That is course the Non-Aggression Principle…
me: The truth is I don’t “look down my nose” at the NAP. I find it to be false in theory and application, although I also find it sentimentally correct.
Similarly, I find the socialist movement that TK likes to point to as false in theory, and disastrous in application.
As a matter of FIRST principles, I believe it’s important to figure out what the Truth is, and then follow the best path toward that truth. Socialism fails because its premises are largely false, as is NAPsterism, although in different ways.
From its shaky foundation, socialism destroys prosperity. From its shaky foundation, NAPsterism is of almost no consequence.
Tom, I do not think that having Bill Weld appear on national television in the vice presidential debate, presenting his version of “palpable Republican,” as if it has something to do with libertarianism, or the Libertarian Party, would be a good thing.
re Perot’s number stability: his inclusion in the debates likely played a factor!
PS
if Steve meant “polling becomes predictive of the November outcome” then he should have used a different set of words than “polling won’t matter”
I suggest that everyone read “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion” by Jonathan Haidt and then continue with comments. If he is right, then everyone has already made up their mind and nothing anyone adds will change anything.
Robert Capozzi responds (July 23, 2016 at 05:14) to my contention that the success of the GLBTQ rights movement came “from people standing up and taking serious personal and political risks to speak out and be visible before it was deemed socially acceptable to be queer”, with the following:
“That makes a lot of sense for a single-issue constituency. Whether it makes sense for a political party to aggregate 20 “radical” positions way outside the mainstream, in which the extreme positions alienate many of the other single-issue constituencies is another matter.”
To which I would point out that GLBTIQ rights are really a constellation of issues, not a single-issue constituency (there’s a reason for the alphabet-soup acronym). The unifying principle is respect for people’s differing sexual proclivities and gender identities, but it applies to a whole range of issues from anti-bullying rhetoric to marriage equality to choice of bathrooms.
If the Libertarian Party were to take random radical positions on 20 various issues and attempt to aggregate them in some artificial manner, then that might indeed be alienating. But libertarianism also has a unifying central principle – as much as you Robert like to look down your nose at it.
That is course the Non-Aggression Principle, which ties together the otherwise disparate threads of the Libertarian Party’s pro-freedom positions every bit as compellingly as the various issues and constituencies of the queer community are tied together by the idea of respect and the demand for legal equality that naturally flow from it.
RC,
I do not have direct access to your imagination for the purpose of figuring out how figments of it are working out.
tk, and how’s that working out for NAPsterism so far?
RC,
Hey, if you want to keep trying to convince yourself that the choice is between “debating obscure applications of the NAP” on one hand and some magical utopia where abandoning all pretense of holding fast to any principles whatsoever results in “success” on the other, by all means knock yourself out. But you probably won’t convince anyone other than yourself of that absurd proposition.
“Whether it makes sense for a political party to aggregate 20 ‘radical’ positions way outside the mainstream, in which the extreme positions alienate many of the other single-issue constituencies is another matter.”
That may depend on what the goal is.
If the goal is to elect candidates to office in the short term, probably better to keep “radical positions” to a minimum, although holding one might work if that one catches on.
On the other hand, the “radical” parties of the 19th and early 20th centuries accomplished many of their goals while holding multiple “radical” positions.
The radical abolitionists — the ones who were too radical to go for the “moderation” of the Republicans, at least until the Civil War broke out — also tended toward support for women’s suffrage and “temperance” (alcohol prohibition), both of which they also eventually got.
American socialist parties of the radical but not necessarily revolutionary communist varieties eventually prevailed on child labor laws, minimum wage, Social Security, etc. without ever limiting themselves to focusing on just one “radical position.” At any given time, one of their “radical positions” was popular enough to force one or both of the ruling parties to co-opt it.
tk, politics requires risk taking.
Amateur wonks debating obscure applications of the NAP is risk-free behavior, and without risk, there is no tangible reward, other than outwonking otherwise kindred wonks.
starchild: And that radical consciousness came from people standing up and taking serious personal and political risks to speak out and be visible before it was deemed socially acceptable to be queer.
me: That makes a lot of sense for a single-issue constituency. Whether it makes sense for a political party to aggregate 20 “radical” positions way outside the mainstream, in which the extreme positions alienate many of the other single-issue constituencies is another matter.
Andy is right — the debate thing is something of a two-edged sword.
On the one hand, being in the big kids’ table debates would greatly raise the Johnson/Weld profile, exposing them to more voters.
On the other hand, Johnson’s debate skills are so miserable that it could backfire in a big way. In 1992, to the extent that debate performances hurt the big third party ticket, it was Ross Perot’s VP candidate, Admiral James Stockdale, appearing disoriented and confused. “Who am I? Why am I here?” This time the top of the ticket is the bigger problem. Weld could probably hold his own. Trump and Clinton would tear Johnson to pieces if they felt like they needed to pay any attention to him at all.
Darryl,
Well, obviously polling will “matter” for purposes of determining whether or not Johnson and Weld are allowed to participate in the big kids’ table debates (I’ll be interested to see whether or not they deign to debate their third party counterparts).
I suspect that what Steven was getting at vis a vis polling “mattering” was at what point polling becomes predictive of the November outcome.
That point is, in fact, usually late October, and what is usually going on at that point is that the third party vote is evaporating under the heat of “wasted vote” propaganda.
One exception to that rule is Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign. There are a number of factors that make it hard to figure out why his numbers held reasonably steady. IIRC he was at 38% when he dropped out during the summer, then came back in in early October and held in the 15-20% range from then on out. What effect the late re-entry had on number stability, I can’t say. One thing that his results MIGHT indicate is that there’s some sort of threshold above which the candidate becomes less vulnerable to “wasted vote” evaporation. If there is, and if Johnson/Weld manage to get above that threshold, maybe they’ll do as well as some Libertarians hope.
Given what we saw in the debates leading up to and at the national convention, and given what we saw at CNN Town Hall, this may be a rare instance where the LP candidates and the party may be better off if they do not get in the debates.
“Polling won’t matter until late October”
Well, considering the first debate is Sept 26; polling WILL matter by mid-August because that’s when the CPD decides who to include in the debates
Andy Craig writes (July 22, 2016 at 13:39) “The triumph of legal equality for gays and lesbians is in fact the textbook case of how you don’t get radical change without intermediate steps in between.”
This isn’t necessarily true – sometimes you do get sudden, radical change – but I don’t want to quibble about that.
A more crucial point is that the major reason the GLBTQ cause has seen the success that it has, is that people have increasingly adopted a radical consciousness with regard to the issue: They are no longer prepared to accept legal or social inequality or discrimination against GLBTQ people in any form. That radical consciousness is what has been driving the legal progress.
And that radical consciousness came from people standing up and taking serious personal and political risks to speak out and be visible before it was deemed socially acceptable to be queer.
I just wish he would be at least as libertarian as the Constitution Party candidate..lol
I’m actually very pleasantly surprised that Jonson is doing this. He still has a chance of getting my vote if he A) acts more libertarian and B) has someone coach him on his presentation skills.
I’m very pleased to read about this development, and would have offered to be involved, except that Starchild and Caryn represent (most of ) my views well.
I won’t mention any names, Andy Craig–but if you find yourself at a meeting with lots of GJ’s handlers present, you might suggest that everyone strive for some unity. At least one of Gary’s staffers is aggressively chasing his base supporters away.
Due to the above person’s actions, I will vote for Gary, but I will no longer actively campaign for him.
Have a great weekend everyone. Will be super hot here …. yuck
….virtually [none] of which have NOT come to fruition….
CAH: The LP didn’t call for intermediate steps. It radically called for the whole thing and accepted what it could.
ME: Stipulating that the LP was among the first to call for marriage equality. It’s called for a lot of far-out stuff through the years, virtually of which have NOT come to fruition.
The question is: Was the LP’s early call for marriage equality (which, btw, many NAPsters believe to be the “wrong” position) consequential in the eventual twists and turns that led the Supremes to settle the matter?
My sense is No. It was mostly gay activists and liberals. Ls (whom many NAPsters believe to be mis-interpreting the NAP Talmud) at best rode the coattails of the gay community and liberals.
Weed has been legalized in some states, and the LP’s early calls for complete drug legalization might have been slightly consequential there. Here, the Brahman NAPsters have not been backbiting like they did on marriage equality.
Polling won’t matter until late October. Then, and only then will the marketing strategies being used by Johnson/Weld can measure a reach-impression ratio of effect.
It is mathematically possible for Johnson/Weld to do well with voters that are anti voters. If their votes are against, then the LP will have to acknowledge that.
Johnson/Weld are centrist. Pulling the LP to the center is a smart move in this election cycle.
1. Both major parties have nominated candidates that have no general appeal.
2. No singular candidate has a statistical advantage at this moment.
Being pro-centrist instead of pro-liberty will work during a summer of low gas prices, syrian civilian casualties, and a high suicide rate for veterans. The war with the police will test both Johnson and Weld on their political speak. This will separate being a Governor and being a President.
Peace
Andy Craig, I do NOT reject the libertarian position on immigration. That is a flat out misrepresentation of my view, which I have explained on multi occasions here. You either have poor reading comprehension skills, or you are flat out lying. Unlike you, I favor ABOLISHING the state. I am an anarcho-capitalist. I SUPPORT peaceful people being able to cross borders/property lines in a free market society, as in one with no welfare state, and no elections where people can vote other people’s rights away, and where discrimination by private individuals is legal. I do NOT support non-peaceful people crossing borders and getting on welfare, becoming “citizens” and registering to vote, and voting to expand the state.
Even though I think that the state should not exist, I recognize that there could be major problems caused by going where we are now into a free society without a transition phase.
It is funny how “politically correct” Libertarians like Andy Craig jump for joy over state marriage licenses for gays, when this is not the real libertarian solution to the problem, as the real solution is to abolish state marriage licensing. Now I do not have a problem with gays getting state marriage licenses, but I see this only as an interim solution to the problem, as the real problem still exists, and that is government being too involved in people’s lives.
So “politically correct” Libertarians like Andy Craig think it is wonderful to accept incremental changes like STATE marriage LICENSES for gays, but then they throw a fit if somebody dare suggests keeping out immigrants who are socialists, communists, or theocrats, or at the very least not letting them feed off of the welfare system and not granting them citizenship (so they can’t vote and gain political power).
aj: If Johnson really gave a damn about party unity he would have endorsed Larry Sharpe, instead of continuing to stump for Weld.
me: Strikes me that “party unity” is one of several considerations.
It’s entirely possible/probable that WW’s addition is pivotal to the L ticket being taken as seriously as it is. The hard-news press alone I suspect has been MUCH stronger because the L ticket has “two former R guvs from blue states.” That’s an incredibly powerful narrative, which is what politics is–stories. The Ls have MORE experience, are way more level-headed, and are relatively scandal-free.
J/W is a swing for the fences. GJ/LS might have been slightly better than Johnson/Gray in terms of gravitas. The earned media continues to be through the roof, and now the polls seem to be turning toward 15%.
Odds are high that J/W strikes out. But this is like the Triple-A players getting a shot in the big leagues.
Any campaign that failed to take such basic steps would have lost. Indeed they wouldn’t be a campaign at all, just a candidate.
Tom, I am going with the assumption that Johnson/Weld won fair and square at the convention, but this does not mean that they were not counting and recruiting delegates well in advance of the convention, which I label as stacking. If they had not done this, I bet they would have lost.
I hate the mythology of “stacked” conventions in the LP.
In 2008, there were supposedly bus loads of freshly minted “new LP members for Barr” on their way to Denver to make sure he got nominated. They never showed up.
Nor have I so far seen any evidence that the Johnson campaign did anything delegate-wise other than 1) ask supporters to become delegates, 2) ask those delegates to vote Johnson/Weld, and possibly 3) coordinate or subsidize the travel, lodging, etc. of their supporters in some ways.
If the Johnson campaign did #3, it was not the only campaign which did so. I knew Petersen delegates who were lodging around town in groups in houses. Presumably that lodging was assisted in some way by the campaign, even if only by helping Petersen delegates find each other and go in together on Airbnb rentals or whatever.
Of course, more than one campaign laid on the food, soft drinks and booze in “hospitality suite” setting. So far as I know, none of them required certification that you were a supporter to partake (if so, I owe Austin a little something for the plate of fine Sonny’s Barbecue I had).
That’s how politics is done.
Johnson/Weld won fair and square. They didn’t hold a gun to our heads. We have only ourselves to blame for wasting yet another election cycle running another party’s ticket.
“I meant stacked as in delegates that were counted and/or recruited by the Johnson campaign prior to the convention.”
…duh? You think other campaigns *weren’t* trying to recruit delegates and boost turnout among their supporters? That’s not “stacking” the convention, that’s being competent in trying to win.
Nobody was seated as a delegate without being credentialed by their state party according to their rules. End of story.
Personally, I think the LP’s nomination process is not very well-designed and could use an overhaul, but it certainly wasn’t created by the Johnson campaign.
“”I question whether some of the Johnson/Weld delegates were even really libertarians. Sure, they could have joined the party, but I suspect that at least some of them were LINOs (Libertarian In Name Only).””
Of course you do. Because in fantasy-land, anybody who disagrees with you is a “LINO”.
Particularly funny coming from somebody who emphatically rejects the libertarian position on immigration.
I meant stacked as in delegates that were counted and/or recruited by the Johnson campaign prior to the convention.
I question whether some of the Johnson/Weld delegates were even really libertarians. Sure, they could have joined the party, but I suspect that at least some of them were LINOs (Libertarian In Name Only).
If you’re aware of delegates who were voting without having been credentialed by their state party, I suggest you inform Nick.
Otherwise, “stacked” is just a pejorative for “there were too many delegates who disagreed with Andy Jacobs”
Nobody forced anybody to do anything. Johnson and Weld both made their case to the delegates, and on the final ballot both were selected by over 50%. None of the other candidates reached that level of support. More delegates chose Weld than Sharpe, and so Weld was nominated. That’s how that works.
Yeah, Johnson respects hardcore Libertarians so much that he crammed Weld down our throats with his stacked delegates at the convention, even though it should have been clearly apparent that Weld was unacceptable to almost half of the delegation, and with many Libertarians/libertarians who were not in attendance.
If Johnson really gave a damn about party unity he would have endorsed Larry Sharpe, instead of continuing to stump for Weld.
Andy you have both missed my point and I stated it (overstated it) badly. The LP didn’t call for intermediate steps. It radically called for the whole thing and accepted what it could. Pointing to changing social issues is outside the point of what I said, of course social change comes first. If the LP had only advocated for the intermediate steps, it would not have been advocating the libertarian solution. It always called and still calls for complete relationship freedom.
You call for what you want, and take what you can take to get there. It is never “I will only take all or nothing.” At least not for this radical nor the LPRC.
This seems to have gone off into a rabbit trail that is no longer my interest, so I bid my farewell and thank the Johnson campaign once again for honouring me.
“law-wise it did happen overnight”
That isn’t even true narrowly of the Supreme Court’s marriage rulings. They struck down the ban on federal recognition first and then came back a couple of years later and struck down state bans.
There would have been no Obergefell without Windsor. There would have been no Windsor without Lawrence v. Texas. There would have been no Lawrence without Romer v. Evans. There would have been none of those cases without the efforts to repeal sodomy and cross-dressing laws at the state level. And that never would have happened but for the efforts to change public opinion and breaking down “the closet.”
The triumph of legal equality for gays and lesbians is in fact the textbook case of how you don’t get radical change without intermediate steps in between.
Andy, I work with DWP on LPRC issues, and I don’t agree with your assessment, but I have no desire to white knight here.
And the SoP… well we disagree there but it is what it is, and you know that is my peculiar obsession.
I need to clarify my remark that we can all co-exist. I did leave the LP over the gun issue . . . I mean we can co-exist on here! At the same time, I do believe that different voices are important for a party.
As of today, though, I am still voting for Gary Johnson for the second time
Thank you Tony I hope for more polite discussions. I am a unifier. I ran as a radical but was elected by mostly moderates because I am known as a reasonable principled hard worker.
I know of people who quibble with the wording of the SoP— I too think it could be much better-written than it is, and is more than a little dated– but I don’t know of anybody who rejects the basic ideas outlined in it. I do not think the SoP speaks at all to the radicalism vs. pragmatism debate, other than the ways it implicitly dodges it.
I know you Caryn don’t see driving the moderates out of the party as your goal. But there are radicals who do, and one of them was the RC’s endorsed presidential candidate.
Andy, law-wise it did happen overnight, and we are talking about laws. Of course activists laid the groundwork, but I think you know I could come up with other examples. The fact is that A to D or M or whatever doesn’t ALWAYS OR NECESSARILY have to go through laws B, C, D etc. Of course social change precedes it. I could get all revolutionary and say the American Revolution or the Civil War shows baby steps aren’t necessary but I am a pacificist and will not use violent examples.
But the fact is that A to C requires law B is just absurdly false.
True, gay marriage was not overnight. I was vocal on it when I was 18 in 1992 and I wasn’t alone. It was a long hard fight that ultimately saw fruition.
Caryn, I appreciate your tone in defending your position. These discussions are only polarizing when we make them that way. You and I are on different ends of the libertarian spectrum, but I think there are more agreements than disagreements.
I have agreed with Johnson many many times on this board that every party has a “radical” side, i.e. ultra-liberals, hard-line conservatives etc. The LP is no different. We can all co-exist 🙂
why pick just one lets fusion with both and the green party as well. that way we will get almost 100%
I have got a sure-fire way to grow the Party. (this is sarcasm to prove a point folks, and that is that growing the party isn’t the top concern – libertarianism is)…. let’s get rid of the no-fusion requirement and co-endorse Trump. We could see the Party explode over night. Or Hillary. Pick one. Either way this is a guaranteed plan to grow the party. If that is all we care about.
“nationwide we went from no gay marriage to gay marriage overnight.”
I do appreciate your point, but this is a poor example. The Obergefell ruling did not come out of nowhere. It was the culmination of decades of incremental shifts, first in public opinion, then in public policy, going all the way back to Stonewall and before.
==f in the future, the radical wing of the party wants to nominate its preferred candidate who takes a more hard-line stance on the issues, they need to come forward with a candidate who is firstly presentable and professional— who has some appeal to people for whom ultra-radicalism is not the only concern– and secondly who doesn’t see it as their mission to make the party more radical **by driving the moderates out of the LP.** We don’t nominate a candidate to *shrink* the party, and that’s the sort of message and strategy that rightfully gets less than 10% at a convention.==
My first choice was Steve Kerbel. Not a hard-line radical. As far as shrinking or growing, I refuse that debate. We have the boundaries of our tent embedded in the Statement of Principles as far as what the Party stands for (though of course an absolute socialist can vote for us and I thank them for their vote). The Statement of Principles is the size of our tent no matter how much some might wish to ignore that fact. That is all I ever say on the issue to the point of being a broken record. This is how the Party was set up.
If people wish a different sort of Party I wish them the best in starting one. I think the floodgates may soon be open for a plethora of new parties and I welcome that.
An advisory board of “high profile Libertarians?”
Is this some kind of joke? This must be some kind of land speed record for oxymorons since the only high profile Libertarian is the one actually running for President.
It gives me solace to believe that this must be simply a patronizing gesture.
Tony,
Not true. For one thing the numbers are arbitrary, and nationwide we went from no gay marriage to gay marriage overnight.
Large leaps can happen. You don’t get to non-defined and non-asked for goals.
But I will take an A to B while still asking for Z. This false picture of (at least the LPRC radicals) as being “all or nothing” needs to die a painful and hideous death. There may be some radicals like that. We are not. But we do not hide our goals, we ask for them. And take what the enemies of liberty compromise to give us. And then ask again.
These IPR discussions are stupidly polarizing at times and I have little interest. I look forward to serving on this committee and am beyond honoured to have been asked.
Johnson does occasionally get asked about the more radical elements in the party (and almost always not in a favorable light from the questioner). He goes out of his way to make the following points about it in his usual spiel: 1) that he respects Libertarians who are more radical than he is and is glad they’re in the party 2) that the debate between hard-liners and pragmatists exists in every political party, and is evidence that the LP is a real political party 3) he was nominated by a majority of delegates on the exact same message he’s running on in the general election: i.e., the party knew he was a moderate/pragmatist going into this, and accepted that. He took an identical message into Orlando that he’s taking into the general election.
I’ll say this about it: being a big-tent goes both ways. I’m not a radical or an an-cap, though I used to be both and have since rejected that framework. I’m somewhere between a classical liberal and a minarchist; I believe Hayekian moderation and Friedmanite pragmatism have their place in libertarianism just as much as does Rothbardian radicalism. With constant cries of “not really libertarian!” lobbed in our direction, the party has just as big a problem alienating moderates and pragmatists as it does supposedly not satisfying radicals. It’s no small part of the disconnect between the party and the broader libertarian movement.
Put more bluntly: Gary Johnson has never said he wants an LP that doesn’t include radicals; despite the insistence of many of them (granted not all, probably not even most) that they don’t want an LP that includes him and his supporters.
If in the future, the radical wing of the party wants to nominate its preferred candidate who takes a more hard-line stance on the issues, they need to come forward with a candidate who is firstly presentable and professional— who has some appeal to people for whom ultra-radicalism is not the only concern– and secondly who doesn’t see it as their mission to make the party more radical **by driving the moderates out of the LP.** We don’t nominate a candidate to *shrink* the party, and that’s the sort of message and strategy that rightfully gets less than 10% at a convention.
Tony,
Well, to be fair, we don’t know that they didn’t make a 30- and/or 60-second cut of that video.
Salt Lake might be a good market for them. I’ll be interested in where they focus their money. My guess would be 1) New Mexico and 2) small states where Trump and/or Clinton didn’t do well in the primaries (Vermont and New Hampshire seem pretty natural). Their goals presumably extend to carrying at least one state, so that Johnson is in the top three and eligible for election if it goes to the House. I’d say that’s a very long shot, but a worthy goal.
The ads are out there. I haven’t heard anything about airtime buys.
I wish they would have made a 30 or 60 second version of that recent video they did and put it on some markets they are somewhat strong in – maybe salt lake city
“As for radical libertarianism being inherently unpopular – ask yourself how Mr. Perry would be doing in the polls right now. I’d say less than 1%.”
Then you’re not living in the real world.
With Trump and Clinton as the major party choices, the LP could have nominated a used Mr. Potato Head that we picked up at a thrift store, and Mr. Head would be polling in the 8-10% range at a minimum.
The first time the LP did real polling during an election cycle that I’m aware of was 2004, and Rasmussen had Badnarik at 5% in August. Johnson/Weld are clearly doing better than that. The real question will be if they can add to what they have as the election closes in, and how much of it they hold on to through election day.
Normally the prospective third party vote evaporates in October under pressure from heavy “wasted vote” propaganda. It may be that the quality of the ticket, or the ugliness of the major party campaign atmosphere, or both, manage to minimize that evaporation.
Any word on whether or not the Johnson campaign has started campaigning outside the free media space? Production of TV- and radio-quality ads and airtime buys for same?
Andy, PLEASE stop correcting your type-o’s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Caryn, you can’t get to “C” unless you get to “B” first.
Should read, “candidacy….”
Pete – I think broader participation in the party’s leadership beyond the LNC is a good thing generally, and that would include advising the Johnson campaign, so I’m kinda with you in spirit there. I’m not sure why mostly LNC members were approached, but having been asked, I’m happy and honored to serve.
As for “LNC hypoxia”, holding meetings outdoors as I’ve often suggested could help with that. 😉
The problem isn’t really with the LNC itself however, imho. Losing touch with one’s larger purpose is a danger inherent wherever there are competing incentives or influences (wielding power, garnering financial benefit, etc.), in other words to all party leaders in positions of authority or paid staff whether at the national or the state level.
But I believe we can mitigate this danger by insisting on transparent, accountable, bottom-up governance.
Johnson has been at this long enough that he SHOULD already be well versed in libertarian philosophy, history, economics, and current events. The fact that he is not does not speak well of his canadicy.
This Board of Advisers strikes me as throwing a bone to his libertarian critics. I am skeptical that this board will accomplish much of anything.
I think the only thing that needs to be said, is this is a great gesture to party unification by Gary and I applaud it.
And Tony misunderstands the radical tactic of always declaring what we want “A to Z” and then being willing to see what the opposition will bring, which may very well be “A to B” and we will never refuse a genuine step to liberty. When you declare you want ‘A to B” you likely get nothing.
Starchild: If Darryl Perry had been the LP nominee, I tend to think he would be doing only slightly less well in the polls than Gary Johnson is now
While we agree on some thing, on this we are way off. Mr. Perry wouldn’t have been my 1,000th choice for the nomination. I might have chosen that clown who stripped ahead of him. I’d rather have candidate who want to go from “A” to “B” rather from “A” to “Z” at once.
But then again, my views are not even close to the radical end of the LP, so my opinion might mean nothing 🙂
As far as LNC hypoxia… if CO had been asked to nominate someone, I am fairly certain it would have been me either way. Being a new LNC member, I am not institutionalized in any form.
==Unless hell has frozen over and Aaron Starr is being embraced by the Radical Caucus)===
LOLOLOLOL. Actually Aaron and I have always worked well together. He wrote a motion that I presented at this LNC meeting. We disagree on several things, and got into a fun little shouting match at convention “Dilatory!” “No it isn’t!” but remain mutual great respect and friendly collegiate terms.
AMcCarrick – Bye Felicia.
******
I am pleased to have been asked to serve in such a capacity and hope I am of service to our candidates as we work to assist them. (PS: I seriously doubt that any comment on IPR had anything to do with this decision. It was a good faith gesture by the campaign in response to concerns heard from actual state affiliates and LNC members who mean a lot more than nasty internet commenters like the first two on this article). And nasty commenters aside, our Statement of Principles says what it says and stands for what it stands for. I asked at Convention for Governor Johnson to represent us all, and I am super pleased and proud that he has taken that to heart….as he personally promised to me he would at the Presidential banquet dinner (after I was extricated from being stuck in the elevator). (unlike most commenters, nasty or otherwise, I actually was at the convention, and do actual work other than sniping on the interwebz)
I recruit Johnson voters daily. And at least partly key to revitalizing the Colorado Party. And am a Party radical (consistently libertarian). And an LNC member who represents everyone in my region and hold my duty to the Party’s Statement of Principles in the highest regard. I do the work.
The Party is a revolutionary Party with vanguard/bleeding edge ideas. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth will not change that. #sorrynotsorry
I am excited for this campaign and believe we will see states come up yellow on the electoral map–some say I am a delusional– but I believe it. I’m in. You in?
Thank you to the other people asked who are willing to serve.
And I say “slightly less well” only because Gary Johnson started with a significantly higher base of name recognition.
Tony – As for how more radical Libertarian candidates have done in attracting votes compared with less radical Libertarian candidates, I haven’t noticed a significant overall difference.
And that being the case, I think we’re smarter to go with the more radical message, because it does more to educate the public and shift the debate in a libertarian direction. Among other results of this is making the job of future Libertarian candidates easier.
If Darryl Perry had been the LP nominee, I tend to think he would be doing only slightly less well in the polls than Gary Johnson is now, but of course there’s no way to prove that one way or the other. My sense is that in terms of vote totals, who the Libertarian presidential candidate is in any given year has tended to matter a lot less than the overall political climate that year and who else is on the ballot.
I think it’s great that Gary is listening, or at least I hope is listening. For a man who has run for Governor twice and President twice he clunks a lot in day to day news bits. He needs grounded, well thought out advice from Libertarians who aren’t so caught up in their radicalism they forget that they need to govern, and that people’s lives (unfortunately, a sign of government grown too big) are at risk.
Generally speaking, you will not find this in the LNC. My opinion of the LNC is better than it used to be since I’ve come to appreciate the task of getting ballot access in 50 states, but this the only thing they are consistently good at. Better to find the opinion leaders at the state levels, or even ask the States to present nominees to his campaign. He’ll get better advice that way that doesn’t suffer from LNC hypoxia.
Tony – I wasn’t saying I could have anticipated the question, only that the response was ill-advised (a point on which I’m glad we apparently agree). If you’re correct that Gary and his advisors also realized after giving that answer that it could have been phrased better, there’s no shame in issuing a clarification along the lines of the following:
“By the way, don’t get the wrong idea about me saying that auditing the Fed could cause a worldwide panic. I’m strongly in favor of overhauling the Fed so that we can get back to sound monetary policy. I simply meant that I think the results of an audit could be alarming to some if it turns out the Fed is not as strongly backed by gold or any other real assets as they may have assumed it was. While that wake-up call could cause a bit of temporary pain to markets, far better they take that hit then that we continue to bury our heads in the sand while the problem gets even worse until we get hit with a REALLY major crash.”
When it comes to auditing the Fed, there would be no worldwide panic, not even a worldwide yawn. For those few who are aware of the Fed, and care at all, the fact of an audit would provide little to fear, and the results would be unlikely to surprise.
@DWP
“understand the basics of libertarian philosophy.”
People who understand something don’t typically hang up on interviewers who are asking about it.
“It’s largely focused on LNC members, not internet trolls”
Without disparaging any of those named, I have to point out those categories are not mutually exclusive.
“This board should be completely unnecessary, because a Libertarian Presidential candidate should understand the basics of libertarian philosophy.”
Fixed that for you
Maybe he should have worded it differently, but how could you have anticipated the question? I’m sure that after he gave that answer, he (and his advisors) knew he should have worded it differently.
As for radical libertarianism being inherently unpopular – ask yourself how Mr. Perry would be doing in the polls right now. I’d say less than 1%. How have candidates that skew toward that part of the party done in elections?
Tony – You seem to be assuming that radical libertarianism is inherently unpopular. That’s a self-defeating attitude. As LP Vice Chair Arvin Vohra pointed out at the Libertarian National Committee meeting, sometimes the hardcore, radical position is in fact more appealing to voters, and easier to present, than a more wishy-washy stance that is less clear and compelling.
Beyond *what* is said, there’s also a lot in *how* things are said. For instance, if I’d been asked, I would’ve advised Gary not to say that auditing the Fed would cause a “worldwide panic”. While I suspect it’s true that the results of such an audit could be alarming to many, especially those who are heavily invested in the statist quo, describing the reaction as a “worldwide panic” suggests that an audit would be a bad idea, rather than a necessary first step to fixing the problems (sticking one’s head in the sand is usually not a good option).
“This board is completely unnecessary. Capitulating to the views of the few radicals on this message board is weak!”
Looking at the composition of the board, it’s not a radical exclusive affair. (Unless hell has frozen over and Aaron Starr is being embraced by the Radical Caucus) It’s largely focused on LNC members, not internet trolls. This is a good form of staying engaged with the party. I’ve heard of a wide variety of prominent Libertarians being offered positions within the campaign prior to this, dating back to the end of the convention.
Many LP members have fears about the candidate, I think the Johnson campaign is doing what it can to address that.
Polit bureau?
I won’t go that far – and I never used the word “retarded” as a pejorative (sorry Trump, I am a bit PC I guess), but the opinions on here should mean absolutely nothing to the Johnson campaign and the LP in general. It is fun to debate and I try to keep it civil (except with Andy), but we should have no influence on anyone!
Tony From Long Island…. Agreed. This place has turned in to a shit storm of people just bitching about people “not being libertarian enough” for their retarded brain-dead heads. This place isn’t worth visiting anymore… so bye. I suggest anybody with a brain not bothering coming here anymore either.
This board is completely unnecessary. Capitulating to the views of the few radicals on this message board is weak! If the views of the radicals start getting spouted and picked up, you’ll see those poll numbers start to go in the opposite direction.
You want to get in the debates? Let Johnson / Weld keep doing what they are doing.
You nominated them, now let them run. You made your bed, now sleep in it.
I recruited a Johnson voter last night. She is an independent who leans democrat, but will not vote for Clinton. Trump is out of the question. The campaign is doing quite well without meddling . . .