LIVE BLOGGING: Libertarian National Committee Quarterly Meeting December 10-11, 2016

lncdec16Live Blogging of 10 December 2016 LNC Meeting, Alexandria VA.

From LP.org

Libertarian National Committee (LNC) quarterly business meeting

When:
Saturday, Dec. 10, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (LNC Business Meeting)
Saturday, Dec. 10, 7:00 pm. to 10:00 p.m. (Party at LP Headquarters – tickets)
Sunday, Dec. 11, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (LNC Business Meeting)
(Start and finish times are approximate and subject to change at the meeting.)

On Friday Dec. 9, arriving out of town guest are welcomed to drop by the LP Headquarters any time between noon and 8 p.m. to meet and chat informally with staff and any LNC members that arrive in time.

Where: Marriott Residence Inn, 1456 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 (which is half a block down the sidewalk from LP Headquarters, which is at 1444 Duke St.).

Who: LNC and some staff. All Libertarian Party members welcome to observe the business meeting.

Marriott Room Rate: $119 Per Night Group rate expired 11/10/2016 but may still be available. Contact our Marriott rep Erica Weinbaum at (703) 548-5474 or Erica.Weinbaum@marriott.com and ask if the “LNC Meeting” room block rate is available; otherwise ask for current rates. Many other hotels are withing walking distance.

Marriott parking: $15 per day (must ask for special Libertarian Party rate). Must get parking pass from hotel reception prior to entering garage. Short-term metered street parking is available in the area (Jamieson Ave., West St., Commerce St., or Prince St. – watch signs for restrictions). Some parking may be available by the LPHQ office in the Round House Square office complex, but only park in spots marked 1438, 1442 or 1444 (unmarked spots do tow on weekdays).

Directions: Taxis from Ronald Reagan National Airport (DCA) to the Marriott run about $25. Alternatively, the Metro (subway) is a short ride and easy walk.

Metro: From the airport (DCA), take either the Blue or Yellow Metro lines south for two stops (5 minutes) to the King Street Metro Station. Exit the Metro Station and cro2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_proposed_agendass the parking lot to Diagonal Rd.; walk left on Diagonal Rd. for half a block; then right on Dangerfield Rd. for two blocks till you reach Duke St. You’ll see the Marriott just across Duke St. and slightly to the left. Taxis are available at the King Street Metro Station for the very short ride to the Marriott in case of bad weather.

The Marriott offers a free shuttle with drop-off & pickup service throughout Old Town. Also, a free trolley goes from the King Street Metro station to the Potomac River and points in between.

Hotel web site: http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/wasdk-residence-inn-alexandria-old-town-duke-street/?app=resvlink

Directions: http://www.marriott.com/hotels/maps/travel/wasdk-residence-inn-alexandria-old-town-duke-street/

Dining: http://www.marriott.com/hotels/hotel-information/restaurant/wasdk-residence-inn-alexandria-old-town-duke-street/

Local area: http://www.marriott.com/hotels/local-things-to-do/wasdk-residence-inn-alexandria-old-town-duke-street/

Meeting Content

Live Broadcast: The LNC will attempt to stream the meeting live on the Internet. Be advised that broadcast quality has sometimes been low and intermittent. http://www.ustream.tv/channel/libertarian-party1

Chairs Proposed Agenda

2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_proposed_agenda

Reports (will be added later)

This entry was posted in Libertarian Party on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee and is a candidate for LNC Secretary at the 2018 Libertarian Party Convention. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

429 thoughts on “LIVE BLOGGING: Libertarian National Committee Quarterly Meeting December 10-11, 2016

  1. George Phillies

    The LNC is being presented with false claims about polling during the curent election cycle. It should reject them.

    Claim #1: Polling was unusually inaccurate. At the national level, that clearly not true. The HuffPost poll aggregator for four way races, set to minimal smoothing to catch last minute changes, reported a 3% lead for Clinton. The lead was 2%. At the state level — see the firewalled articles on politicalwire.com — it becomes clear that Clinton did as well as predicted, a bit better in her stronger states and a bit less in her weaker states, but Trump picked up across the board, because the undecided vote broke in his favor.

    Claim #2: CNN did not include millennials in their polling. That’s also completely false.
    ““All respondents were asked questions concerning basic demographics, and the entire sample was weighted to reflect national Census figures for gender, race, age, education, region of country, and telephone usage. Crosstabs on the following pages only include results for subgroups with enough unweighted cases to produce a sampling error of +/- 8.5 percentage points or less. Some subgroups represent too small a share of the national population to produce crosstabs with an acceptable sampling error. Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with “NA”.””

    Claim #3 The polls were tilted against Johnson by asking questions in various order. However, as it turned out, the polls overstated Johnson’s level of support.

    With respect to Claim #2, there are assertions that the National Office circulated this claim, which the Policy Review Committee should have caught as a violation of the statement of principles, prevaricating for political advantage being fraud.

  2. George Phillies

    Caryn, Thank you for the link to the article, which reads:

    “Blogs
    CNN to millennials: We’re excluding you from the presidential poll
    Posted on Sep 8, 2016

    ImageFrom a Steve Kerbel column at beinglibertarian.com:

    “Enter the CNN Labor day poll. Recent polls have Johnson/Weld leading the demographic of ages 18-34 in most areas. CNN released their most recent poll showing a decrease to 7% support for the Libertarian ticket. That didn’t look good for Johnson/Weld… until a rather obvious omission came to light.

    “The CNN poll included the following results for the 18-34 demographic: N/A. Yes, they excluded the millennials. A group of 65 million people who are knowledgeable and open to something new. 65 million people who favor Johnson/Weld in large numbers. 65 million people who would catapult Johnson/Weld into the Presidential debates.””

    The claim that N/A meant that the millennials were excluded is completely false. See my prior message. The National Committee and National Chair should have a serious discussion with the Natioanl staff about this issue.

  3. Caryn Ann Harlos

    I just didn’t want you to think I was pulling that idea that National had this on their page out of my bum. I do believe it was in a second place, and did appear on FB multiple times, but that is pretty much unsearchable.

  4. George Phillies

    The original claims below:

    “”Yes, they excluded the millennials.”

    “The reason for this exclusion was vaguely outlined by the methodology, which stated “Interviews were conducted among these subgroups, but results for groups with a sampling error larger than +/-8.5 percentage points are not displayed and instead are denoted with ‘NA.’” The poll was apparently just large enough that the sample of 35-49 year-olds hit an 8.5% margin of error, skirting the methodological rules set by the poll by being just low enough to be included. The margins of error within this poll were already too high, but the fact that the poll excluded nearly a third of the voter base from its calculation renders the results a mathematical dishonesty.””

    are false, and arise from a misinterpretation of an entirely transparent English sentence.

  5. Stewart Flood

    Wow…some really big paychecks in there! And yes, it is correct to consider legal fees to be a paycheck for the [deleted] attorneys!

  6. Michael Daily

    LNC should look into possible embezzlement of former Ohio LP chairman Bob Bridges and the LPOs reluctance to pursue charges against him.

    Such actions cause serious harm against the party long term as ignoring such issues or hiding them make the postage party far less credible.

    LNC should ask the state affiliate and appropriate committees why they are not pursuing charges against the former chairman for his outright theft.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp

    “LNC should ask the state affiliate”

    No, LNC shouldn’t ask the state affiliate. What the state affiliate does or doesn’t do is the state affiliate’s business, not the LNC’s business. And every time the LNC forgets that, a bunch of bad shit happens.

  8. Andy

    Michael Daily, can you elaborate further what exactly it is that you are alleging that Mr. Bridges did? This is the first that i am hearing about this.

  9. Michael Daily

    Mr Bridges used LPO funds from their general funds for personal expenses and failed to provide backup and receipts for numerous expenses.

    The LPOs inaction could be a sign for outsiders as to the inability for the LP to operate as a viable political party and not fit for national stage. Setting back the organization for years.

    The LPO has chosen to hide the wrong doing as opposed to address. And I think this is exactly what the LNC should be involved in for state affiliates. Otherwise the LP party and brand can be tarnished.

  10. Matt

    The LNC ain’t your daddy. If you have a problem with the leadership of your state party handle it there.

  11. George Phillies

    The National Party requires State Parties to adhere to the statement of principles, which opposes the use of fraud for political purposes. In our world, graft and corruption are political purposes. Is your state party adhering to the statement of principles? Is it entitled to remain as an affiliate?

  12. Andy

    “Michael Daily
    December 9, 2016 at 18:48
    Mr Bridges used LPO funds from their general funds for personal expenses and failed to provide backup and receipts for numerous expenses.”

    How much money are you alleging that he stole? What exactly were the personal expenses? What is the time frame in which these events are alleged to have happened? Has Mr. Bridges been removed from his position in the LP of OH, or has their been any form of reprimand against him?

  13. Matt

    “Is it entitled to remain as an affiliate?”

    Yes, that’s the only question that the LNC can legitimately ask here. Otherwise they have no business and no say in the matter.

  14. Wolfefan

    Bridges does not seem to be listed as an officer on the LPOH website, and the chair’s position is listed as vacant.

  15. Jim

    The Ballot Access Committee Report estimates the LP spent between $759,900 and $841,600 on ballot access in 2016. That’s combined spending by the LNC, Johnson campaign, state affiliates, and others.

    Does anyone know the comparable figures for 2012 and 2008?

    The report seems to be on the high side, based on my own estimates of Connecticut ballot access expenditures. It estimates Connecticut spent $54,600 this year. My own estimate was $48,700 in 2016, which was down from $54,000 in 2012.

    The differences between my estimate and the Ballot Access Committee estimate seems to be that the Committee says the LNC spent $45,000 in the state, but the CTLP reports to the state of CT only shows $41,000. The last payment from the LNC is listed August 8th in a report that goes to October 20th, so it seems unlikely any more came. The rest of the difference is that the BAC estimates the Johnson campaign spent $2,000 there. I guess the LNC and Johnson campaign could have spent $4,000 and $2,000 directly, without going through the state affiliate.

  16. paulie

    The Ballot Access Committee Report estimates the LP spent between $759,900 and $841,600 on ballot access in 2016. That’s combined spending by the LNC, Johnson campaign, state affiliates, and others.

    Does anyone know the comparable figures for 2012 and 2008?

    I’m not sure anyone compiled all those sources as comprehensively before, but it was probably not very different. The number of states that had to be done went down a bit, but the price per signature on average went up, especially towards the end of the petition drives in the big midwest/northeast corridor.

  17. paulie

    Public comments. Mark Miller (?) thanks LNC for contribution to campaign. Moulton urges LNC to make a $200k + paydown on the mortgage and fix the website. M Carling says the balloon payment is a better opportunity to fundraise for the mortgage and money should be used now for party building.

  18. Chuck Moulton

    The meeting has begun. I only have a phone (no laptop), so liveblogging will be hard for me. I’ll still note some things… keeping track of roll call votes will be hard.

  19. paulie

    Question of whether to consider the 207k mortgage payment now or during the budget process. Redpath argues in favor of the latter. Sarwark believes it would be better to clarify it now so the latter discussion is less complicated. Starr says all the finances should be discussed together.

  20. paulie

    Additional people – making a lot of the same arguments. Moellman says some states may not get ballot access if too much is spent on the mortgage. Question called.

  21. paulie

    Chairs Proposed Agenda

    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_proposed_agenda

    Reports

    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_affiliate_support_committee_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_audited_financial_statements_2015
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_awards_committee_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_ballot_access_committee_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_budget_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_campus_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_chairs_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_conflicts_of_interest_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_convention_committee_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_convention_minutes_2016
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_epcc_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_financial_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_international_rep_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_it_committee_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_lnc_pol_consultant_proposal
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_lnc_policy_manual
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_membership_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_region_1_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_region_2_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_region_3_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_region_5_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_region_6_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_region_7_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_region_8_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_secretary_report
    2016-12-10_lnc_meeting_staff_report

     

  22. paulie

    Harlos, Lark object to Secretary’s parenthetical remarks in the convention minutes. Suggestion that they be made an appendix instead. Harlos says that does not solve the problem.

  23. paulie

    July meeting minutes, Harlos wants it noted that LNC asked John Moore to put Libertarian on his website. Lark says it was an ex parte discussion and should not be in the official minutes.

  24. paulie

    Thanks the rest of the staff. Points out first time in 20 years we got 50 states. Points to Oklahoma, as one that many people were against at the time, as paving the way to make the rest possible. Gains in ballot retention, vote totals, membership, donations

  25. paulie

    Convention had possibly the best attendance ever. Convention website was best in a long time and other promotion efforts were well done. Professional photographer, lots of photos from the convention.

  26. paulie

    Thanks for liveblogging, Paulie!

    You’re welcome, and thank you as well! While it’s easier to type from a full size laptop in bed, there are times when the sound goes out and I’m not the fastest typist, so additional help is always good, especially from those who are there. Also, I may need to take breaks.

  27. paulie

    Andy Burns, LP Action and LP Store sites worked well. Some problems with LP.org redesign but a lot of other things have been smooth.

  28. paulie

    Info on how Zocalo was selected, etc? No such report scheduled. Moellman said he has a report from Ludlow but says it is only for LNC. Current standing order is that Benedict be the interface with Zocalo.

  29. Steve Scheetz

    No, LNC shouldn’t ask the state affiliate. What the state affiliate does or doesn’t do is the state affiliate’s business, not the LNC’s business. And every time the LNC forgets that, a bunch of bad shit happens.

    Mr. Knapp is spot on with this.

    On a side note, I spoke with Mr. Pettigrew, and the LPO has handled the issue in question INTERNALLY. It is not anyone else’s business what the circumstances of those transactions were, but suffice to say that the money was / will be repaid, and the offending person has been removed.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  30. paulie

    Moulton: website is more than just donations, the info on candidates being lacking right before the election hurt us. Question on what if anything we are doing about recounts; Sarwark: nothing, on purpose.

    LP is being asked for media comments about 2-3 times as often as GP and has ballot retention in 37 plus DC vs 21.

    Recess.

  31. George Phillies

    The Ballot Access Committee should be pinned down on what it thinks “ballot access” means, in their report. If “Presidential Ballot Access” is meant, nothing that happens this year has any effect on 2020.

  32. paulie

    Back in session. Campaign report, audit committee report and legal counsel report delayed due to the relevant people not being there yet. Moving to affiliate support committee (Hayes).

  33. Joeseph Buchman

    Auditor, Mark Frye, was scheduled for 1pm and has confirmed his attendance then. Not so much people running late as needing to honor the appointments we scheduled with our outside experts.

  34. Paul H

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    It is one thing to say, as the LNC, we are n providing for out affiliate needs better than on previous years, and another thing entirely to explain HOW you claim that. Please elaborate. Telling ourselves we are doing great isn’t digging in deep enough.

  35. paulie

    It is one thing to say, as the LNC, we are n providing for out affiliate needs better than on previous years, and another thing entirely to explain HOW you claim that. Please elaborate. Telling ourselves we are doing great isn’t digging in deep enough.

    Daniel is summarizing the findings of the survey of affiliates. See https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.prod.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/08194930/2016-12-10_LNC_Meeting_Affiliate_Support_Committee_Report1.pdf for additional details.

  36. paulie

    Harlos thanks Affiliate Support Committee for committee transparency. ASC is also taking over Re-register campaign (LP voter registration).

  37. paulie

    Good record, some notable victories on the legal front. PA sig reduction and the intimidation scheme of having candidates who lose challenges pay the costs cited as top win. ME laws struck down. CT out of state ban struck down.

  38. Steve Scheetz

    In addition, maybe we should partner with the ACLU on this Marijuana / Firearms purchase issue. I am not certain if the attorneys in the case in NV have considered this, but if not, they should, so should we.

  39. paulie

    In addition, maybe we should partner with the ACLU on this Marijuana / Firearms purchase issue. I am not certain if the attorneys in the case in NV have considered this, but if not, they should, so should we.

    The ACLU is good on a lot of things, but my impression has been that gun rights is not one of them.

  40. paulie

    TN has similar situation. WA has a possible case over how write-ins were counted to keep us below 5% so we don’t become a major party, even though write-ins were not tallied, included invalid write-ins etc.

  41. Andy

    Since the LNC is allocating money towards lawsuits, why don’t they allocate some resources into lawsuits against venues that carry public foot traffic and where the “authorities” run off people who are attempting to gather signatures on LP ballot access petitions?

    This is the #1 thing that holds LP ballot access drives back, and this has cause numerous LP candidates to FAIL to qualify for the ballot over the years, and even in cases where the party did overcome this unnecessary and illegal hurdle of harassment, there have been numerous instances where the party had to spends LOTS OF EXTRA MONEY TO DO STRESSFUL LAST MINUTE SAVES, which would NOT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IF NOT FOR THE POLICE, SECURITY GUARDS, VENUE MANAGERS, etc…, illegally harassing, threatening, and running petition circulators out of locations that are open to the public, and in some cases, even arresting petition circulators (on false charges).

    There are already laws on the books as well as court rulings which are SUPPOSED to protect our right to go to places that are open to the public to ask people to sign petitions or to register to vote, or to hand out literature (know as pamphleteering) or simply discuss issues with people, but these rights are being ignored and trampled upon in much of the country, and this has been a major factor in Libertarian Party candidates failing to qualify for the ballot, as well as for LP ballot access drives running over-cost.

    This is a problem that has plagued the Libertarian Party ever since it started doing ballot access drives back in the 1970’s. What has the party ever done to address this reoccurring problem? The majority of the time, NOTHING, and even with the few times anyone actually bothered to do anything, it has never been much more than making a phone call.

    How about filing some lawsuits over this? How about pressing criminal charges?

    The party could actually win monetary damages in these cases, plus we could set precedents that will cause people to think twice about messing with us in future LP ballot access drives.

    If we obtained some victories here it would cause future LP ballot access drives to run more smoothly, and the party would save money by avoiding expensive last minute bailouts.

  42. paulie

    Some discussion of keeping track of minor expenses. Starr says we need to do it because they can add up to larger amounts that we are required to keep track of.

  43. Daniel Hayes

    No- Marsh, Katz, McKnight, Demarest, Starchild, Harlow, Lark, Hewitt, Bilyeu,
    Against -Hayes, Bittner, Goldstein, Hagan, Vorha,
    Abstain- Redpath
    Chair did not vote

  44. Daniel Hayes

    aaaan I messed it up again..I am banning myself from posting..the Against were supposed to be the Fors when I listed the names…

  45. paulie

    I guess they must have said 50 minutes, not 15. A lot of wrangling about whether a bonus should have been listed as 2014 or 2015. I vaguely recall this from a past meeting, although I had forgotten.

  46. paulie

    Motion about moving the 7k in the report between 2014 and 15. Starchild asks why it matters to loud applause. Proceeds to a vote, which had a lot of abstentions, but again I did not catch the final result.

    (NOTE: it was 5-5 with the rest abstaining. Failed. — Joe Buchman editing)

  47. paulie

    Mic is far from Alicia and she is naturally quiet, so results are not the easiest thing to catch listening to the livestream. On the other hand, people who are sitting close to the mic such as Aaron Starr and Ken Moellman are very easy to hear. Proceeding to working lunch. Starchild’s discussion of taking advantage of news like Jill Stein is doing with the recount.

  48. Chuck Moulton

    I think the vote to move the $7k from one year to another failed by a 5-5 tie with a lot of abstentions. The chair voted no.

    Daniel, no worries. Keep posting. Better to make mistakes and catch them than to not post at all.

  49. paulie

    Discussion of taking advantage of hot news items. Can a committee respond fast enough? Can staff find enough time given everything else they are doing?

  50. paulie

    Starchild asked about protests. I think Nielson said they tried to do a little bit of that and did not get much coverage. Lark asked about getting youth for Johnson lists. I did not hear the answer clearly enough. Not hearing Ron very well in general.

  51. paulie

    Starchild suggests an award for people who further the cause of liberty, not limited to LP members. No vote. Moving on to convention committee.

  52. paulie

    Moellman nominates Goldstein. Katz nominates Starchild. Harlos, Hewitt nominate Hayes. I missed who, nominates Mattson. Harlos nominates Demarest. Hayes nominates Bilyeu.

  53. paulie

    Results of Convention Committee vote

    Mattson 16 Bilyeu 15 Goldstein, Hayes 14, (???Demarest 10, Starchild 4???)

    People before the parentheses elected. One write-in vote for Katz. Ballot Access Committee report next up (Moellman)

  54. paulie

    Portions of report redacted due to discussions of individual contractors. Meetings were not open because they were strategic but notes have been published retroactively except for small portions in executive sessions. Moellman thanks the rest of the committee. Redpath thanks Moellman as does Harlos. Harlos suggests interfacing with region reps for preparing the report. Bob Johnston and other staff members also helped with the report a great deal.

  55. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    Since the LNC is allocating money towards lawsuits, why don’t they allocate some resources into lawsuits against venues that carry public foot traffic and where the “authorities” run off people who are attempting to gather signatures on LP ballot access petitions?
    —–

    Are there any such lawsuits for the LNC to allocate money toward? Perhaps you should file one and ask the LNC to support it.

  56. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Starchild wants open ballot. Does not get a second.”

    It doesn’t need a second. Motions to elect people to committees are substantive motions and a roll call vote is therefore required.

    Yes, I know the LNC ignores that rule whenever it damn well pleases. But I do occasionally feel the need to point out that it’s a rule and that they’re breaking it.

  57. Andy

    Tom, yes there are plenty of such lawsuits that could be filed, some by me, and some by others.

    I have specific incidents which occured during LP ballot drives since 2014 that happened in Illinois, Arkansas, and Oklahoma for which I would like to see lawsuits, but there are plenty of other incidents.

    Perhaps you’d be willing to chip in some money for the court filing fees and the cost of hiring process servers and for the attorney fees. If I have to go back to any of these places to testify, it would be nice to get some assistance with the travel and motel costs as well.

  58. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I don’t have a lot of money, but yes, I will certainly donate some of what I do have if you pursue (or tell me about others pursuing) a lawsuit against authorities who chase petitioners off public property. Petitioners clearly have a right to circulate political petitions on public property as long as they don’t obstruct traffic, threaten people, etc.

  59. Scott Pettigrew

    Just one point of correction. Mr Scheetz was correct about factually incorrect about something above.
    Mr. Bridges was not removed from the party. He took personal responsibility for a mistake and resigned.

    It is a Libertarian Party of Ohio internal matter, and will remain so. I will not comment further on the issue, except to say this:

    Over the past 6 years, Bob has given a LOT to the Libertarian Party and to the Libertarian Party of Ohio, and it pains me to see a guy whom I consider a very good friend go through what he has in the past weeks.

  60. Scott Pettigrew

    Sorry – Mr. Scheetz was FACTUALLY INCORRECT about something above. (voice recognition got me…)

  61. paulie

    It was back for a few seconds, then died again. Ironically, technical problems while other technical problems are being discussed. It was pretty smooth yesterday though.

  62. paulie

    Grey on grey – literally a web development joke. Too “johnson centric” and needs other candidates, maybe some who are not white males. SSL certificate issue slows site loading. Problems with donation page, missing content. Issues with lp.org emails?

  63. Thomas L. Knapp

    It’s not so much that there’s a problem between Zocalo and anything else as that Zocalo should never, under any circumstances, be allowed to touch the lp.org web site again except to roll it back to what it was before they fucked it up.

  64. paulie

    Project went long, problems with rollout, server cost went up and should have gone down. Amazon was chosen because their basic site was cheaper but there were a lot of add-ons. may be better to move to host that is better at supporting wordpress. Ludlow built “cake” and zocalo built “frosting,” staff was not involved til very recently.

  65. paulie

    Staff wants responsibility for taking control of the website. Need other ways to contact people besides email. Somes mentions younger people are moving away from email to other modes of communication.

  66. paulie

    Sounds fairly unanimous yes, except Harlos voted no. Buzzer rang in the middle of it so there may have been one or two more nos but it clearly passed.

  67. paulie

    If LNC members are reading along, can we add a redirect once old content is uploaded so old links would work? Dead links hurt site search rankings.

  68. Thomas L. Knapp

    That “crap” is the party’s history. If Redpath doesn’t want to read it, fine, but why should it be taken away from everyone who might?

    Also, the more web site content there is, including old stuff, the more the LP web site shows up in search results, meaning that we get more visitor.

  69. paulie

    If LNC members are reading along, can we add a redirect once old content is uploaded so old links would work? Dead links hurt site search rankings.

    Moulton brings this up, Sarwark says redirecting is his intention.

  70. paulie

    McKnight supports separate site for the old info so the site is more appealing to new visitors while preserving the content for those who want to find it.

  71. Thomas L. Knapp

    The new site isn’t appealing to visitors. It looks like ass. And not smooth, nubile, barely legal ass. More like “this person should have died a long time ago” ass.

    ROLL THE SITE BACK to the perfectly good site it was before Ludlow and Zocalo shit all over it, then build new content from that point. Problem solved.

  72. Chuck Moulton

    I’m a little concerned about whether the Raiser’s Edge change will impact dumps to state affiliates. The LP has a lot of Raiser’s Edge add-ons and modifications to do various things. This change was pitched as a serious upgrade of the underlying version.

  73. Chuck Moulton

    The separate archive site is a second best solution that will look silly as a snapshot in time, but it’s better than lose all the content. It even has the potential to be an improvement if it is treated as a real archive rather than a snapshot — e.g., instead of listing the LNC at the time of the website transition on the archived site, provide lists of the LNC for every previous term.

  74. Chuck Moulton

    They are now talking about the budget.

    As expected, a lot of crazy projects are trying to burn through our extra money rather than doing something sensible like paying down the mortgage.

  75. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: “As expected, a lot of crazy projects are trying to burn through our extra money rather than doing something sensible like paying down the mortgage.”

    Sadly, this seems to be typical.

  76. Steve Scheetz

    No worries, My only reason for bringing it up at all was to state that this was an Ohio matter, it is being handled by those in Ohio, and it is nobody else’s business.

    In addition, I apologize to Mr. Bridges. I meant no disrespect for his taking responsibility for his actions.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  77. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    December 10, 2016 at 18:00
    Andy,

    I don’t have a lot of money, but yes, I will certainly donate some of what I do have if you pursue (or tell me about others pursuing) a lawsuit against authorities who chase petitioners off public property. Petitioners clearly have a right to circulate political petitions on public property as long as they don’t obstruct traffic, threaten people, etc.”

    That’s great, Tom. I’m glad to hear that you are on board with the idea.

    Unfortunately, since you are not independently wealthy, we need a lot more people to get on board to start making things happen.

    One would THINK that the Libertarian National Committee, a group which has a strong vested interest in doing ballot access drives, and a group which does have the money to do things to address this reoccurring problem, would actually put some of its resources into this, but they never do, and whenever I have suggested it, the typical response is for people to either ignore the problem, or run away from it.

    Here is what few people understand. The party could actually WIN MONETARY DAMAGES in these cases, so the party could get more money out of it than it puts into the cases. Also, if we can get the government THUGS to stop harassing and running Libertarian ballot access petition circulators out of locations, the party would AVOID EXPENSIVE AND STRESSFUL LAST MINUTE SAVES, and this would be the case for many years to come. Sure, we will likely always have at least some problems in this area, but I believe that we could GREATLY REDUCE THEM, IF THE PARTY WOULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT INSTEAD OF CONTINUALLY BEING ABUSED AND NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT, AND GENERALLY SWEEPING THE PROBLEM UNDER THE RUG.

    This does not just impact paid petitioners, it also has an impact on unpaid volunteer petitioners. It is hard enough to get people to go out and collect volunteer signatures, but it makes it much harder to get people to do it when the volunteers are prevented from gathering signatures in places that carry lots of public foot traffic.

    Since I was there, I can tell you that there were LP volunteers in Oklahoma who went out and collected signatures, and that they would have gotten a lot more signatures IF they had not been prevented from gathering them at some many locations by the police, security guards, bureaucrats, venue managers, etc…

  78. Andy

    Here is an example of something that should be a lawsuit. This happened in 2014.

    Minneapolis PD officer arrests Libertarian MnGov campaign for ballot signature collection

  79. Andy

    This is continued from above. Here is footage of a Libertarian Party candiadte being ARRESTED for the “crime” of asking people to sign a ballot access petition in a public park.

    Chris Holbrook for MN Governor arrested petitioning @ Lake Calhoun Minneapolis

  80. paulie

    Someone off-camera proposes letting the building be seized by the marshals for non-payment of mortgage and moving the office into a tent, or something like that.

  81. Andy

    I still question whether it was a wise move to have the office in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country. The party could have purchased an office somewhere else that would have been much cheaper, and reality is that the party’s office in the DC metro area has ZERO impact on what happens in DC, and hardly anybody in the DC metro area even knows that the party has an office there.

    This is a case of image over substance.

    I understand that the office has already been purchased, so given this reality, it does make sense to pay down the mortgage when given the opportunity. How about using some of the money to pay down the mortgage and them some of it for things that will actually grow the party (and not some bullshit, I’m talking about things that have been proven to grow the party from past experience)?

  82. Andy

    “paulie
    December 11, 2016 at 10:52
    Someone off-camera proposes letting the building be seized by the marshals for non-payment of mortgage and moving the office into a tent, or something like that.”

    Ridiculous.

  83. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Redpath wants to have monthly appeals in LP News to pay down the mortgage. I guess as opposed to putting it in the budget?”

    I don’t think he wants ALL of the money to pay down the mortgage to come from LP News appeals. He wants the EXTRA payments (additional paydown of principal above and beyond the regular/required mortgage payment) to be in solicited separate donations instead of being part of the budget.

  84. paulie

    Who’s the guy who wants to act like the government (assume that revenues are about to explode, so “invest” instead of paying down existing debt)?

    Larry Sharpe

  85. Andy

    This is footage of me being illegally prevented from gathering LP ballot access petition signatures at a public festival that was held at a community college in Oklahoma City. Paul and another petition ciruclators were at other parts of this event but are not seen on camera.

    How about a lawsuit against the police, the festival organizers, and the community college?

  86. paulie

    Wow, Sharpe said that? Makes me wonder how he became the VP nomination counterweight to Weld. That there is some Keynesian horseshit.

    He has an ultra-optimistic, grow by leaps and bounds view of the future. Remember, he’s a motivational speaker.

  87. Thomas L. Knapp

    “He has an ultra-optimistic, grow by leaps and bounds view of the future”

    So do I. But the electric company isn’t going to buy that as a reason for blowing my paycheck on Powerball tickets instead of paying the bill.

  88. Starchild

    Just caught up on reading this thread; got in late to yesterday’s session due to missing connecting flight in Denver, kind of forgot about IPR until this morning, but will try to do some blogging here today.

    Paulie writes (December 10, 2016 at 16:00), “Starchild suggests an award for people who further the cause of liberty, not limited to LP members. No vote. Moving on to convention committee.”

    Just to clarify, what I was proposing on this was to have an award specifically geared toward recognizing people who are martyrs for liberty, i.e. who stick their neck out for the cause and suffer significant consequences for doing so, for instance who are jailed, shot by police, etc.

  89. Andy

    Here is footage of me being illegally prevented from gathering LP ballot access petition signatures in Oklahoma City at a public park that had a public festival happening. Before I started recording, the park employee started harassing Paul, and demanding that he leave. Paul pulled out some legal papers that indicated that we had a right to gather petition signatures there, but this guy did not care what the laws or court rulings said, he continued to insist that we had to stop asking people to sign the petition, or we had to leave.

    How about a lawsuit against the park commission and the police? Ever hear of Section 1983 lawsuits? United States Code, Title 18.

  90. Andy

    Starchld said: “Just to clarify, what I was proposing on this was to have an award specifically geared toward recognizing people who are martyrs for liberty, i.e. who stick their neck out for the cause and suffer significant consequences for doing so, for instance who are jailed, shot by police, etc.”

    I totally agree with you about this, and I have been saying the same thing for a long time, including righ there on IPR. This award should also include people who had to flee the country for fear of prosecution like Edward Snowden.

  91. Starchild

    A motion to pay down $150,000 on the mortgage failed on an 8-8 tie after Nick as chair voted to prevent it from passing. After which the motion to pay down $100,000 passed as Paulie noted above. I supported both motions – we have a good amount of income right now, and should pay off the building as quickly as possible instead of kicking the can down the road like politicians typically do in order to so that they have more money to play with immediately. That’s not responsible, imho.

  92. paulie

    So do I. But the electric company isn’t going to buy that as a reason for blowing my paycheck on Powerball tickets instead of paying the bill.

    My attempt at humor aside, no one was actually suggesting that we not make the required monthly payments. However, I did make the mistake once of assuming that we would have a lot of growth, when I was actually voting on the budget without much preparation in 2013, so I would be less quick to make that an assumption now.

  93. Starchild

    Bill Redpath made a motion (Brett Bittner seconded) to not follow the “Wiener Rule” which requires us to pay $60,000 down on the building in odd-numbered years including 2017.

    I oppose this – again I think we should pay off as much as possible, as soon as possible.

  94. Starchild

    I oppose cutting the frequency of LP News; in fact I think we should go back to publishing it monthly. I suggested that we could reduce that additional cost a bit by publishing fewer pages per issue (current issue is 20 pages).

  95. paulie

    Bid to cut 2 issues of LP News (to publish 4 issues in 2017 instead of 6) fails, 9-6.

    There was also one abstention. Not sure who that was

  96. paulie

    I oppose cutting the frequency of LP News; in fact I think we should go back to publishing it monthly. I suggested that we could reduce that additional cost a bit by publishing fewer pages per issue (current issue is 20 pages).

    I like the idea of monthly. I believe the feedback you got from staff was that the vast bulk of the cost is postage, so cutting pages does not significantly reduce the cost. I’m guessing they did not figure in staff time spent on preparing LP News.

  97. Starchild

    Alicia Mattson moves that if money available for programs does not exceed $350K on March 1, or $700,000 by June 1, 2017, the budget for compensation shall be reduced by $80,000. In speaking to it, she voices concern that current revenues may not be sustained, and this would apply quarterly test.

    I seconded the motion. This makes fiscal sense, and I think we already spend too much on compensation (at least for senior staff).

  98. Andy

    Here is yet another lawsuit that the Libertarian Party ought to file in regard to LP ballot access petitioners being harassed and illegally prevented from gathering signatures. This is a recording of a Libertarian petition circulator calling up the CTA (the Chicago Transit Authority – a municipal (ie-government) corporation that runs the subways, commuter trains, and bus system) corporation, which receives local, state, and federal tax payer funding) after being prevented from gathering signatures on subway platforms.

    Chicago Transit Authority vs. The Bill of Rights 001

  99. Shane

    Amy discussion as to how the party will acquire new supporters and convert them to donors?

    EVERY one of my clients are expecting a drop in revenue after a booming 2016 — which is typical.

    The LP should be expecting the same, especially after a presidential campaign that was based in opposition rather than issues.

    So again, what’s the LNC’s plan to stay alive?

  100. paulie

    Amy discussion as to how the party will acquire new supporters and convert them to donors?

    EVERY one of my clients are expecting a drop in revenue after a booming 2016 — which is typical.

    The LP should be expecting the same, especially after a presidential campaign that was based in opposition rather than issues.

    So again, what’s the LNC’s plan to stay alive?

    Yes, Goldstein moved for 25k for a new project Archimedes plus electronic means of contact that didn’t exist then. I think that passed.

  101. Starchild

    Andy – Can you write up some proposed language for the lawsuit(s) you would like the party to file, including budget for these lawsuit(s)? I’m potentially willing to make a motion. We’re talking about the budget now.

  102. Andy

    This is a follow up phone call that the Libertarian petitioner above made the the Chicago Transit Authority about being prevented from gathering signatures at CTA locations. This happened in 2014, and the situation was never resolved.

    Chicago Transit Authority vs. The Bill of Rights 002

  103. Thomas L. Knapp

    I understand the IMPULSE to want to use this year’s “windfall” for various good and important things.

    But every dollar that’s paid down on the mortgage more than pays for itself with future non-accrued interest. Pay down the mortgage and do the other things with THAT “windfall.”

  104. Starchild

    I believe the overall amount budgeted for lawsuits in 2017 is $60,000, although I could be wrong about that. The budget is not always easy to read/understand.

  105. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    EVERY one of my clients are expecting a drop in revenue after a booming 2016 — which is typical.

    The LP should be expecting the same, especially after a presidential campaign that was based in opposition rather than issues.
    —–

    ^^^ This ^^^

    And then some. Regardless of the quality or non-quality of the presidential campaign, two factors will always exist:

    1) More people think about politics, and are therefore likely to write their FIRST checks to political organizations, in an election year.

    2) In an off-year, some people who wrote checks in the election year won’t reprise those checks the following year, no matter how wonderfully the organization performed — because it’s not just about how the organization performed, it’s about what the donor is interested in. In 2016, it was politics. Next year it might be disaster relief, or saving abused animals, or hockey, or going out for a steak.

  106. Thomas L. Knapp

    And yet it seems like every time the LP has a good fundraising year in an election year, some on the LNC go berserk just assuming those revenues will not only continue but increase, and then want to budget according to that assumption.

  107. Shane

    Thanks Paulie but approving $25k isn’t a plan. They may not need to spend more than email fees right now if they had a plan.

    The thought is nice but the $25k will likely be blown on social media or another ineffective converter.

    As expected.

  108. paulie

    Goldstein did say he wants to do snail mail also. I don’t think the plan was discussed in much detail. They may or may not have much additional detail to discuss at this point.

  109. Andy

    “Starchild
    December 11, 2016 at 11:36
    Andy – Can you write up some proposed language for the lawsuit(s) you would like the party to file, including budget for these lawsuit(s)? I’m potentially willing to make a motion. We’re talking about the budget now.”

    I would like to file lawsuits over the two incidents that I posted about above in Oklahoma, and also the incident that occurred in Arkansas earlier that year (2015) where I was falsely arrested at Arkansas State University in Jonesboro for the “crime” of asking people to sign an LP ballot access petition. I was locked in jail for almost 2 days and charged with four bogus offenses, all of which ended up getting thrown out, AFTER they wasted a bunch of my time and money (on unnecessary expenses and causing me to miss work).

    If we could sue them in federal court for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, and for voter suppression (or interference with qualifying candidates for the ballot, or something like that), we could send a message which will get the government goons to back down in the future, or at least think twice before they mess with us again, in Arkansas, as well is in the other states that are in the same federal district court as Arkansas (I believe that circuit also includes Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota). Really, getting a victory in Arkansas would also send a message to the government thugs in other districts and make them think twice about messing with us as well.

    If we got victories in federal court in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Illinois, this would cover three federal court districts.

  110. Steve Scheetz

    Thomas, so we are all clear, Larry Sharpe did not suggest that we leave ourselves unable to make our mortgage payments. What he suggested is to not pay extra. His thinking is that we will be selling and moving due to party growth, so everything people are concerned about would be a moot point because with an inability to work out of such a small space, we will have sold, bought a new space, everything will have been changed and all of this discussion will be a moot point.

    I want to have THAT problem! I believe we will have that problem. If you have been to LPHQ, you would have seen what I saw on Friday night. Everything is stuffed everywhere, and while I was not at the LP party last night due to my home county LP’s holiday party being last night and my needing to be there in order to deliver an award, everyone who WAS there said that it was standing room, and people were stuffed there.

    The fact that, the LNC meeting room where we are right now is in the hotel next door speaks to the space issues. Anyway, just some background regarding the mindset. Myself, I would have preferred to spend the minimum to maintain compliance with the rules spelled out in the policy manual, because that amount is also budgeted for 2017, but that option was not considered at all. The extra $60K voted in favor of today could have been used to work on projects designed to bring in more money in 2017.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  111. paulie

    Stepped out for food. When I got back Caryn Ann was talking about the ballot access committee not being transparent and then proceeded to a vote, but I missed what the vote was for.

  112. Shane

    TK, absolutely agree. Even in the non-fundraising portion of my business I see a drop in simple email open rates post election.

    I’ve known for a long time that political donors are unique and rarely give outside of election session. This is the first year I’ve seen a measurable drop in — no joke — actual interest in anything that smells political.

    The political fundraising market has already adjusted and is a very positive thing for orgs in that list owners are renting lists on a rev share basis — huge as that means no prospecting losses.

    So again, a $25k expenditure is just odd to me. It’s too small for a traditional campaign and too big if you know what you’re doing.

  113. Starchild

    Alicia Mattson’s motion to require 2/3 vote of the Executive Committee before staff can spend more on ballot access passes, I think 14-4 (just providing an extra check and balance). I voted yes.

  114. Chuck Moulton

    Shane wrote:

    Any discussion as to how the party will acquire new supporters and convert them to donors?

    Lauren Daugherty (I hope I got the spelling correct), who is currently a special projects staffer, will be reassigned to lead a several person fundraising team. They will be targeting the Johnson donors over many communications media… individualized pitches rather than blanket mailings.

    That’s my understanding at least.

  115. paulie

    The following vote was so ballot access funds could only be spent with 2/3 vote for exec comm and not exceed the budget – I believe that passed overwhelmingly. Next will be a vote on the overall budget.

  116. Andy

    I really do not know what the budget would be, but I do think that it would be cheaper than a lot of other things on which the party spends money, and if we win, which I believe we have a very good chance of doing, then we could WIN MONEY, plus the party would SAVE MONEY on future ballot access drives.

    Here is an example of somebody being prevented from gathering petition signatures in a place that carried public foot traffic, well actually, this person was not completely prevented from gathering signatures, they were just forced to stand in a “Free Speech Zone” where they were cut off from talking to a lot of people.

    A student at Citrus College in California, who was president of the Young Americans for Liberty (a libertarian campus club founded by Ron Paul) chapter at this college, was gathering signatures on a petition to stop the NSA from engaging in warrantless spying. This petition was not to put anything on the ballot, it was what is known as a plebiscite petition, which is a petition that is done to urge government officials to take certain actions. The student sued and the college had to pay him a $110,000 settlement.

    Do you have any idea how many times this kind of crap goes on during an LP ballot access cycle? It happens a LOT, and most of the incidents never even get reported.

    Citrus College to pay $110,000 to settle student’s first amendment lawsuit

    http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20141203/citrus-college-to-pay-110000-to-settle-students-first-amendment-lawsuit

  117. Thomas L. Knapp

    Starchild,

    What Steve is saying is that the office is already getting to small for LNC’s needs and that therefore it will be sold in the not too distant future, and the proceeds used to pay off the mortgage and then some, so why bother about paying extra right now?

    And he may be right about selling it — but it still makes sense to pay down the mortgage as much as reasonably possible, as soon as reasonably possible.

    Every dollar spent paying down the mortgage principal is effective net future revenue in the form of interest that we would have had to pay and now don’t. And if we were to sell the building, that just means we’d have more cash on hand after paying off the mortgage from sale receipts.

  118. Starchild

    Overall budget just passed, 12-4. I opposed, for numerous reasons including not having a ledger in timely fashion (and still not in user-friendly format with clear explanations of line items).

  119. Steve Scheetz

    Starchild, The point is that the policy manual rule was designed to prevent a balloon payment in 10 years. What I am suggesting, and what Larry was suggesting, is that we will have outgrown the office building long before what the rule was designed to prevent actually happens.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  120. Andy

    “paulie
    December 11, 2016 at 11:56
    Stepped out for food. When I got back Caryn Ann was talking about the ballot access committee not being transparent and then proceeded to a vote, but I missed what the vote was for.”

    The current LNC Ballot Access Committee is more transparent (and is also doing more good) than anything the party has had before this in regard to ballot access.

  121. Andy

    Steve Scheetz said: “What I am suggesting, and what Larry was suggesting, is that we will have outgrown the office building long before what the rule was designed to prevent actually happens.”

    I hope this happens, as in that the LP gets so big that we will need a bigger national office.

  122. Starchild

    Robert Kraus says we save roughly $1500 per LNC meeting, by meeting in Washington D.C. I think that’s largely based on the cost of flying staff to other locations when we don’t meet in D.C. My view is that we should not be customarily flying staff to meetings – that if/when we need their input, we can get them on speaker phone as we do legal counsel, FEC counsel, etc.

  123. Andy

    The incident in the video below did not happen on an LP ballot access drive, it happened on a marijuana legalization initiative petition drive in Oregon in 2014, but I am posting this here anyway because it is an example of type of harassment from security guards that Libertarian Party ballot access petitioners go through. This happened at a farmers market that was open to the public.

    Do you people out there think that it is “cool” for petition circulators to get harassed and run out of locations by people like the security goon in this video?

    Petitioner physically assaulted and cursed by Security (contains profanity)

  124. Starchild

    August 19-20 set as date for second meeting. I opposed – I think we should have four meetings per year, not three, so I was hoping for something like April – June – September – December.

  125. Andy

    “Starchild
    December 11, 2016 at 12:16
    Robert Kraus says we save roughly $1500 per LNC meeting, by meeting in Washington D.C.”

    Wouldn’t a lot more money than this be saved if the LNC held meetings via videoconference? The LNC already has teleconference meetings, so what is the point of having so many in person meetings?

    ” I think that’s largely based on the cost of flying staff to other locations when we don’t meet in D.C. My view is that we should not be customarily flying staff to meetings – that if/when we need their input, we can get them on speaker phone as we do legal counsel, FEC counsel, etc.”

    Yeah, couldn’t they communicate with the staff over speaker phone or videoconference?

  126. Andy

    Here is a video of some initiative petitioners being run out of a public bus stop in Lane County, Oregon. Note that the police say that they do not “tolerate” people asking people to sign petitions on “their” property. Incidents like this have happened on MANY LP ballot access drives over the years.

    Cops vs Petitioners (lane county)

  127. Andy

    This is more footage of petition circulators in Oregon being prevented from gathering petition signatures, this time the police ran them out of public park where a public festival was happening. This is something which has happnened on NUMEROUS LP ballot access drives.

    Cops vs First Amendment Initiative Rights

  128. Starchild

    Caryn Ann Harlos just introduced proposed transparency rule. Somewhat watered down from what she proposed at our September online meeting to address objections. I still support, as better than the status quo.

  129. Starchild

    Caryn Ann: We are depriving our party members of the chance to learn about what we’re doing and get involved (she said it much more eloquently).

  130. Starchild

    Alicia Mattson now arguing against transparency. Says would mean “too much bureaucracy” for committees. Says committees are not allowed to adopt their own rules?!

  131. Starchild

    Very disappointing. Most of committee voted the wrong way. Caryn Ann, David Demarest, Patrick McKnight, and myself voted yes, the rest opposed.

  132. Steve Scheetz

    The reasons for their opposition were to say that it would be overly burdensome for committees to have a record of what they were doing.

    (I will just leave that here without comment.)

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  133. Andy

    The recently released Libertarian National Committee Ballot Access report is the best one that I have ever seen in the Libertarian Party. I am pretty sure that there were LNC Ballot Access Committee meeting minutes that were released along with the report, which was more than we got from previous LNC Ballot Access Committees, which never released any meeting minutes, and barely had any meetings (the last LNC Ballot Access Committee only met once during its entire existence). So good progress has definitely been made here.

  134. Caryn Ann Harlos Post author

    I am very disappointed in my fellow committee members *on this decision* (in general I am very happy with the cordial colligiate and productive meeting). I will likely vote against the creation of any new committee that doesn’t include transparency in its creation.

    In my view, we proved that we wish to keep power close to our chests. I will continue my push and my commitment.

  135. Thomas L. Knapp

    Something to keep in mind for New Orleans:

    If an LNC member is against transparency, there are REASONS that LNC member is against transparency.

    I can’t think of any GOOD reasons to oppose transparency.

    If transparency is too much work, get out of the way and let someone for whom it ISN’T too much work do the job.

  136. Starchild

    I agree, Andy. I think the Ballot Access Report is terrific – I just hope the information makes it onto the LP.org website in a place where people will find it. I recommended each state affiliate link page include a section or link with the ballot access data for that state.

  137. Andy

    I have heard that there is a “secret” LNC Ballot Access Report, which I think all LNC members are able to read, but which is not going to be made available for the rest of the party. I have heard that the reason for this is to not publicly smear certain people. I can see where they are coming from with this, however, I also do not really like the idea of a “secret list” where people are put on it without their knowledge, and then not given a chance for a rebuttal. Some people deserve to be blacklisted, or at least “demoted” (so to speak), but I could see situations arising where a person is put on a “secret black list” due to lies or exaggerations or misunderstandings, and then the person put on the “secret black list” has no way of facing their accusers or getting off of the “secret black list,” because they do not even know that they are on it, or that the “secret black list” even exists.

  138. Starchild

    Trent Somes (LNC alternate) is proposing a messaging project. Wants to bid the project out to a political consulting agency, spend up to six figures. He is also offering options to create a committee of individuals in the movement, or an LNC committee and staff.

  139. Andy

    “Chuck Moulton
    December 11, 2016 at 13:15
    I agree that the ballot access committee report was excellent.”

    I did not have a direct role in writing the report (I am not on the committee, nor am i an official committee adviser), but I did have an UNOFFICIAL role in making suggestions to a couple of people who did write the report, including its main author, as to what kind of information the report SHOULD contain. So I am glad to see that a lot of my suggestions were actually implemented.

    Anyway, really good report. Like I said above, it is the best LNC Ballot Access Report I have ever seen (and I have been following this stuff for a long time now), and I’ll go further and say that it is one of the best LNC reports I’ve seen in general.

    It is nice to see signs of progress, so keep up the good work!

  140. Starchild

    Bill Redpath speaking against the proposal – says LP platform is already set, candidates control their own messaging; questions extent to which the LNC can control messaging.

  141. Starchild

    Motion – Marsh, Katz, McKnight, Bilyeu, Moellman, Mattson = yes
    Starchild, Harlos, Demarest, missed others voted no
    Motion passed 9-6. But not spending any money at this time, just to establish a committee to take bids for political consultants.

  142. Chuck Moulton

    Wow. This LNC is monumentally stupid!

    They are gearing up for another blank check flushing money down the toilet to pay political consultants to tell us how not to be libertarian.

    Because I was never called on, I never got to point out LP Texas already flushed over a hundred thousand dollars down the toilet on a stupid marketing plan.

  143. Andy

    “Starchild
    December 11, 2016 at 13:20
    I am open to talking about and studying messaging, but very opposed to hiring paid political consultants.”

    There is not necessarily anything wrong with paying people (assuming that the task can’t be adequately handled by volunteers), however, you’ve got to be careful who you pay, what they do, and how much they are paid.

    I would not hire anyone who does not have a record of being a Libertarian Party activist or who at least has a record of being a sold small “l” libertarian activist, and even in these cases, it would probably be best to pay them based on a commission (as in they get paid based upon the results they bring), or to pay them in small increments with a contract clause that stipulates that the project can be cut off if it is not producing the intended results.

    I have seen the party get burned out of a lot of money over the years, so caution needs to be taken with every expense.

  144. Richard Winger

    Andy, the ACLU since the 1930’s has been the leading force for protecting First Amendment activity on public sidewalks and other publicly-owned property that is generally open to the public. I don’t know what state you live in (I know you move around a lot), but whatever state you live in, I feel you should not only join the ACLU, but attend its meetings and get to know the staff, so that when a new incident comes along you are able to get thru to the ACLU staff quickly and try to get them to help. They have by far the most institutional knowledge of this, of any organization.

  145. Starchild

    Now a motion from Ken Moellman to make the committee a 3-person body including Somes, Sharpe, and a third person of their choosing. I argued against, on grounds we should give notice to LP members who might be interested in applying, and maybe appoint more people.

  146. Andy

    “Starchild
    December 11, 2016 at 13:12
    I agree, Andy. I think the Ballot Access Report is terrific – I just hope the information makes it onto the LP.org website in a place where people will find it. I recommended each state affiliate link page include a section or link with the ballot access data for that state.”

    This report is what Ballot Access Committee Reports SHOULD look like, and this information should be shared with state affiliate committees, and passed on to future LNC and State Committee members.

  147. paulie

    Richard, ACLU is too overburdened to make much of a priority of petition rights in public places, and will be even more so with Trump coming into office and dramatically increasing the frequency of flagrant civil liberties violations.

  148. paulie

    another blank check flushing money down the toilet to pay political consultants to tell us how not to be libertarian.

    Agreed.

  149. paulie

    The recently released Libertarian National Committee Ballot Access report is the best one that I have ever seen in the Libertarian Party. I am pretty sure that there were LNC Ballot Access Committee meeting minutes that were released along with the report, which was more than we got from previous LNC Ballot Access Committees, which never released any meeting minutes, and barely had any meetings (the last LNC Ballot Access Committee only met once during its entire existence). So good progress has definitely been made here.

    Yes, there were minutes included. I took most of them, except for a couple meetings that I missed due to petition turn-ins. Ken wrote most of the report. I helped him a fair bit as did several other people.

  150. Scott Lieberman

    Regardless of how important some of you might think transparency is, transparency is not listed as one of the purposes of the National Libertarian Party in the Party’s Bylaws.

    However, electing Libertarians to public office **is** in the Bylaws. I wish there was just as much of a “groundswell” amongst our members to elect many more Libertarians to public office as there is for “transparency”. For those of you who followed this LNC Session, how much discussion was there of getting more Libertarians elected to public office?

  151. Andy

    “Richard Winger
    December 11, 2016 at 13:32
    Andy, the ACLU since the 1930’s has been the leading force for protecting First Amendment activity on public sidewalks and other publicly-owned property that is generally open to the public. I don’t know what state you live in (I know you move around a lot), but whatever state you live in, I feel you should not only join the ACLU, but attend its meetings and get to know the staff, so that when a new incident comes along you are able to get thru to the ACLU staff quickly and try to get them to help. They have by far the most institutional knowledge of this, of any organization.”

    Richard, I have contacted the ACLU many times. They have helped on a few occasions, but most of the time they are too busy to do anything to help with these situations.

    We should not just sit back and wait for the ACLU or for some other organization to fight our battles for us. The Libertarian Party should be more proactive in fighting in solving these problems. If we can work with other groups on these problems then great, let’s go for it, but we should not sit around waiting for others to do what we should be doing for ourselves.

  152. Steve Scheetz

    I absolutely AM in favor of doing targeted market research, (i.e. figuring out what our target market needs / wants) However, that is not what was proposed. I absolutely agree with Chuck’s spot on analysis. We absolutely NEED to learn from other people’s failure, and while we need to tailor our message, we cannot have people who do not understand our message to be in charge of our message’s delivery.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  153. Andy

    “However, electing Libertarians to public office **is** in the Bylaws. I wish there was just as much of a ‘groundswell’ amongst our members to elect many more Libertarians to public office as there is for ‘transparency’. For those of you who followed this LNC Session, how much discussion was there of getting more Libertarians elected to public office?”

    I agree with you here, but I would add something else to this, and that is that the party/candidates should also spend a lot more time promoting issues to the public which people can implement in their lives which do NOT rely on Libertarians getting elected to office but will advance the cause of liberty. I’m talking about things like jury nullification of victimless crimes, home schooling, alternative currencies, etc….

    Putting out the message of, “Vote for us and we will make you more free.” is not enough, especially since we don’t win elections very often.

  154. Starchild

    Caryn Ann Harlos’s change to remove an inconsistency in the Policy Manual just passed, 12-1, with one abstention (I believe Ed Marsh was the no vote; Trent Somes as alternate abstained – regional rep. Jim Lark was absent from the room).

  155. paulie

    Caryn Ann Harlos’s change to remove an inconsistency in the Policy Manual just passed

    If I understood correctly that was about having reports due to LNC a week ahead of time.

  156. Starchild

    Some discussion of other slogans such as “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom”. Arvin Vohra mentions that the LP has trademarked the “Party of Principle” phrase.

  157. Starchild

    Aaron Starr is saying he’s tired of “just talking to ourselves”, wants to say what’s attractive to other people, not to us [i.e. appealing to people who don’t believe in freedom! -Starchild]

  158. Steve Scheetz

    Scott, Lieberman, I would suggest that transparency speaks toward our party’s credibility, and ultimately our candidates’ credibility. Having more candidates being supported by a party demonstrating a lack of credibility translates to more candidates losing credibility by association.

    We need to demonstrate that we are guided by our principles and show the world what that looks like. We don’t have the option to spend billions on a presidential campaign. People have to look at us and see that we walk our talk. if not, then other people will define who we are and what we are about, and that just sucks. On a side note, local organizations are more than welcome to push local candidates.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  159. Starchild

    Again Caryn Ann Harlos, David Demarest, and myself voting yes, Arvin Vohra abstains, all others vote no. Motion fails, I think 12-3 with one abstention.

  160. Andy

    Steve Scheetz said: “we cannot have people who do not understand our message to be in charge of our message’s delivery.”

    BINGO! This was a big part of what was wrong with the LP’s last three presidential campaigns. We had people who don’t really understand and/or agree with the Libertarian message out promoting that message to the public.

    I’m sure a lot of people will point to the 2016 vote total as a sign of success, but a lot of the reason for this vote total had a lot more to do with this election having been the most favorable market conditions in which the LP has run a presidential ticket (2008 and 2012 were also more favorable market conditions than previous election, but 2016 was even more so), plus I think that there was a realistic potential to get even more votes than the ticket received, and I believe that the campaign squandered this opportunity,

    Also, what is the point of getting votes if you water down the Libertarian message to the point where it starts to drown? Are we in this just to get votes for the sake of getting votes? Anyone who thinks that we are in this just for the sake of getting votes – message be damned – ought to go to the Democratic or Republican parties.

    I understand that there are always going to some differences among Libertarians, but even so, I see a real problem when the party’s presidential ticket is LESS Libertarian than the average Libertarian Party member. I see a real problem when lots of people are questioning whether or not the presidential and vice presidential candidates were even really libertarians.

  161. Andy

    “paulie
    December 11, 2016 at 14:03
    Truth in polling passed. Sounds like Party of Principle will not.”

    I’m not really sure that the LP even is “the Party of Principle” anymore. The party clearly sold out its principles at the last three presidential nominating conventions (for some of the most egregious examples of the party not living up to its motto). “The Party of Principle” is turning into another empty slogan.

  162. paulie

    I actually prefer a slogan that says something about what those principles are. There are lots of parties with principles we disagree with. My suggestion would be “peace, civil liberties, free markets”

  163. Starchild

    Bill Redpath now requesting a loan from the LNC to the Virginia LP to help with the costs of getting a candidate for governor on the ballot, to be repaid with 50% of the funds raised by the candidate.

  164. Andy

    Here is a video compilation, set to music, of petition circulators being illegally harassed and run out of locations that carry public foot traffic in Oregon and Washington.

    Washington is actually one of the best states in the country for protecting the rights of petition circulators, but even so, there are still problems with this in that state.

    Making It Clear – USA is a “no speech” zone.

  165. Starchild

    Andy – I’m still interested in seeing some kind of write-up of this stuff, seeking a lawsuit or lawsuits, that could be presented as a motion to the LNC, but it should include a budget, even if you’re just guessing at that. I wouldn’t want to introduce a request for a blank check. Just posting anecdotes in this thread doesn’t really do too much.

  166. Andy

    “Starchild
    December 11, 2016 at 14:24
    Andy – I’m still interested in seeing some kind of write-up of this stuff, seeking a lawsuit or lawsuits, that could be presented as a motion to the LNC, but it should include a budget, even if you’re just guessing at that. I wouldn’t want to introduce a request for a blank check. Just posting anecdotes in this thread doesn’t really do too much.”

    I wish we would have discussed this prior to this LNC meeting. I don’t think that what you are asking for can be done at the spur of the moment. We will have to have further discussions on this and then come up with something that you can present to the LNC at a later date. I assume it will be a few months until the next in person LNC meeting, and I hate to wait that long, so perhaps you could bring it up to an email vote or maybe it could be brought up in a conference call.

    I thought about attending this LNC meeting, but then I decided to not go at the last minute. Perhaps I should have gone.

  167. Andy

    Starchild, the reason that I brought up how petition circulators are frequently (illegally) harassed and run out of locations in this thread is because I know that a lot of people pay attention to these threads, so it is a good place to draw attention to this issue. This is an issue that has plagued the party for years and not enough people know about it, and hardly anybody even tries to do anything about it.

    Want to know why more Libertarian Party candidates did not qualify for the ballot for this election and for past elections? THIS IS A BIG PART OF THE REASON WHY.

    Want to know why so many ballot access drives have run way over-cost? THIS IS A BIG PART OF THE REASON WHY.

    Want to do anything to address this problem?????

  168. Starchild

    Redpath’s loan request passed overwhelmingly after an amendment to instead offer $12,500 in matching funds was voted down. I voted yes after confirming the money would come from the ballot access budget.

  169. paulie

    Moulton vs. Sharpe debate on the Sharpe/Somes committee, and perhaps also on restoring old content to LP.org? Someone I missed, opposing timecards for staff.

    Adjourned.

  170. Starchild

    Unfortunately none of the members wanted to add links to the additional pro-freedom websites which I proposed linking to on our website; a number of people abstained, but no one else voted for it. I think it should have been an easy yes to show solidarity with other pro-freedom groups and help with “internal education” of Libertarians and others visiting our site.

    Meeting is now adjourned (just before 3:00pm Eastern time).

  171. Thomas L. Knapp

    It’s true that transparency is not part of the party’s bylaws.

    Neither is not embezzling.

    That’s because transparency and not embezzling are generally recognized as appropriate behavior by people asking to be trusted with control of an organization and its funds.

    We wouldn’t have to be discussing transparency if successive LNCs hadn’t created a perverse culture of secretive behavior.

  172. Shane

    Hiring political consultants is funny. The LNC did this when I was executive director and wasted $30k on an analysis that was never used.

    The Koch brothers spent $150 million on a supporter identification project (listening to “consultants”) and Koch orgs still have to rent third party lists because their “special project” lists are junk.

    Cruz wasted $27m on a scam psychographic program and Trump was conned into using the same.

    So for the LNC to think they’look somehow crack the code is laughable.

    There is a method to messaging and it’s used everyday in retail marketing. And political consultants refuse to use those methods because they would no longer be able to afford their beach houses.

    Hopefully the committee that has been selected will bring in someone with significant retail marketing experience.

  173. Scott Lieberman

    “Shane
    December 11, 2016 at 15:48

    Hopefully the committee that has been selected will bring in someone with significant retail marketing experience.”

    VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

    Shane is correct.

    But, the LNC won’t do what he suggests until us Pragmatarians elect an LNC that understands that the LP is not in the ideas business. The Party is, or should be, in the business of getting voters to buy our product. Which means getting voters to vote for Libertarian candidates. Obviously the candidates have to most of the heavy lifting on this, but the LNC and the State Committees can grease the skids to make our candidate’s jobs a little easier. But that won’t happen until we get delegates to a Convention who are willing to forgo the short-term ego trip of controlling the Party’s messaging, and instead are willing to accept messaging that moves the country in the right direction, even if it doesn’t make anarchists swoon. For example, look at newly minted Virginia Beach City Council member Jessica Abbott’s home page: https://jessicapabbott.com/ Note that there is nothing on that page that would get an anarchist excited about her candidacy. But – she won her election.

    As an example – why force our candidates to have to defend having all state employees who can marry people be forced to marry gay couples, when the REAL libertarian position is to get the government totally out of the marriage business? The latter can be sold to many evangelicals, but the former instantly turns off millions of potential voters. There is a way to sell govt. sponsored gay marriage, but if you want to help our candidates you might have to settle for wording that is not macho-flashy.

    Being willing to permit the LP to use non-anarchistic messaging requires giving up your instant gratification fix. Many of our members are unwilling to make that sacrifice.

  174. Andy

    I knew that the post above from “Wang Tang-Fu” was going to be a troll post. That is NOT my blog and i ought to look into suing this piece of crap for falsely trying to pass a site off as mine. Somebody throw this bum out of here.

  175. Michael H. Wilson

    Paulie wrote; “I actually prefer a slogan that says something about what those principles are. There are lots of parties with principles we disagree with. My suggestion would be “peace, civil liberties, free markets”. ”

    I fully agree.

    And thanks to all for the blogging work.

  176. Thomas L. Knapp

    “The Party is, or should be, in the business of getting voters to buy our product. ”

    Maybe so. But the “pragmatarians” see to think that the way to get voters to buy that product is to hide as many of its features as possible and hope the voters mistake it for some other product.

    The LP is different from a normal business in one respect: Its purpose isn’t to just sell SOMETHING, ANYTHING, it’s to sell a specific product. A normal business reformulates its product to meet consumer demand. With us, doing that would defeat the whole purpose. The only thing we get to reformulate — if we are actually realistic instead of a bunch of utiopian dreamers like the so-called “pragmatarians” who think we can fake our way to success by fooling voters into thinking we’re something elese — is our marketing.

  177. Andy

    Hugh Jass in another troll, probably the same one as before, and the same one who put up that bullshit site pretending to be me. I wish we were all in the same location so I could physically remove this asswipe myself.

  178. Shane

    Scott, I’ve found that I can get people to respond to just about any piece of crap “product” (in my case, advocacy appeals). The trick is developing and maintaining affinity after you get their attention (and data).

    I believe it’s actually better to draw in people on the hard stuff in order to have them initially in on a higher level.

    We can all admit that once we define ourselves as libertarian (with no alterior motive), we all get pretty hardcore in the eyes of the typical voter.

    In the past two years specifically, my marketing has resulted in over seven million people taking an action to agree with my various clients — and the messages were ridiculously obscure.

    That’s changed my thinking dramatically.

  179. Scott Lieberman

    Shane: Were the people you got to “take an action” doing that for candidates and political parties, or for pressure groups? (aka advocacy groups)

    The advocacy group might need a few hundred thousand hard core adherents nationwide to raise enough money to keep the organization reasonably successful.

    But a political party or statewide/federal candidate needs to get a plurality of votes on Election Day. And the news media generally hates freedom loving candidates, so the media will go out of its way to publicize the most extreme views a candidate or party has ever written or spoke, for ratings, and to make sure that candidate loses.

    The LP has been a failure because the National Party and most state parties have been focused almost entirely on perfecting the LP’s message for internal consumption, rather than trying to get candidates elected to public office. I am certainly open to testing pure messages vs. moderate ones, but I have to wonder if the purity faction will ever permit moderate messages, even if the latter helps us elect many Libertarians to office who move public policy in a libertarian direction while in office.

  180. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I am certainly open to testing pure messages vs. moderate ones, but I have to wonder if the purity faction will ever permit moderate messages”

    The utopian “pragmatarians” have been almost completely in charge of the party’s national messaging for the better part of two decades now. When is their idea going to start working?

  181. Shane

    Scott, I don’t even bother with message testing anymore. Other factors are much more important. The marketing that I do is extremely targeted (and not to the audience likely to response but the demo the client wants to respond). For instance I was recently limited to a universe that lived along a route if a proposed pipeline — long path that shot through rural and urban so vast differences in the standard demographics a political consultant would say are so important.

    Message honestly isn’t that vital — it’s your follow up that is.

    Frequency and recency are the two most important factors in marketing these days. Message . . . not as much.

    And as far as my types of clients, they range from oil and telecom to campaigns and committees. I use the same techniques for everyone.

  182. Shane

    As an example of recency as a tactic, (and I’m not saying I did this but can), but Eddystones (think of them as digital beacons) were setup near polling locations in Cali.

    When a voter crosses a tripwire of 50 feet from the polling location it triggered messaging to their smart phones in the form of video (other formats can be used). So as a voter was in line, they were informed about a referendum and how to vote (something that legally could not be done physically but law hasn’t caught up with tech).

    Message wasn’t really that important as long as the voter could remember how to vote and the recency between the ad view and vote cannot be any better.

    Hope that makes sense.

  183. Steve Scheetz

    I am actually really sorry I missed the Chuck vs Sharpe/Somes debate, but exhaustion from the trip down, little sleep, the drive back to PA for the Montgomery County Holiday Party, VERY little sleep, driving back down this morning, and lots of meeting / talking / etc put me in a position where I felt the need to head back early….

    However, I DID get to see a lot of the LNC meeting. To the people who feel that the LP has been focused on message only, I would like to point out that there were Libertarians on the ballot in all 50 states this cycle. We as individuals did a lot of outreach for our candidates on the ballot, and it is a bit disingenuous to act as though that never happened. I could also comment on the fact that if the message was worked on so much, then it would follow that we would have seen a consistent message throughout this election cycle. Any observer would take note that it could not have been, because consistency was most definitely not seen.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  184. Michael H. Wilson

    Scott if the LP wants to get people elected then it is best to start at the bottom of the ladder and work up from there. Running for school board, city council or county commission would be the place but we don’t have much in the way of materials to help those candidates that I am aware of.

  185. Andy

    “Michael H. Wilson
    December 11, 2016 at 21:40
    Scott if the LP wants to get people elected then it is best to start at the bottom of the ladder and work up from there. Running for school board, city council or county commission would be the place but we don’t have much in the way of materials to help those candidates that I am aware of.”

    I have been hearing this for the last 20 years and it has not led to any great breakthrough.

    The bottom line here is that we do not have a high enough concentration of Libertarians in any jurisdiction to take over any local government boards/councils anywhere, so whenever we elect Libertarians to these positions they are outvoted by Democrats and Republicans. Getting a Libertarian elected to anything is better than nothing, but we are not really winning much unless we start taking over local governments, and to do this we have to have areas that have higher concentrations of libertarians.

  186. Michael H. Wilson

    Andy, I don’t think there is much hope in electing a president in the next few years, so I think to get on the school board, mosquito control district or the water board makes a bit more sense. That is not to say we shouldn’t spend time and money on a presidential race. I think running for president is a great advertising tool for the movement.

  187. Root's Teeth Are Awesome

    Scott Lieberman: I have to wonder if the purity faction will ever permit moderate messages

    Permit? I wasn’t aware that pragmatarians were awaiting permission from any purity faction before engaging in activism.

    As far as I can see, the LP has plenty of pragmatarian candidates and activists who do as they please, market themselves as they please, without first obtaining permission from anyone.

    So you can’t blame the LP’s failures on purists not granting permits.

  188. Joseph Buchman

    Thanks to Paulie for Blogging. Just catching up this morning on what happened yesterday before my flight out later today. (I had planned on Blogging from the meeting room, but Paulie, Starchild, Caryn Ann and others covered it all first/better and I was distracted by reviewing the Audit Committee report early Saturday.

    It does seem a bit crazy to me that the LNC chose to act on a motion to review one allocation by the auditor, Mark Frye. That debate over which year $7k should have been reported in, as well as the policy for tips, tolls, parking fees and other cash payments by staff of under $25.00 which do not have a printed receipt by the LNC itself were, as Mark told me later, “unique in his career as an auditor” and, IMO, reveal the sometimes absurd level of micromanagement that appears to be the culture/tradition of the LNC. As we grow, I hope that will disappear.

    Starchild asked: What is the effect of overruling the decision of the Auditing Firm (and majority of the Audit Committee) in terms of where to allocate that $7k. Aaron and others answered “nothing” (in terms of staff compensation/overall finances). What it does do, however, is add to the reputation of the LP/LNC as an organization that will require more time on the part of the auditing firm to deal with than is standard/normal, and is likely to increase future contract costs with those firms. It also says, in effect, to the audit committee – “We don’t respect the intense time and effort you put into this; we can discern what is best as a much larger body, with less time, than you did.” This hiring of “experts” and then overruling their results/recommendations is also a hallmark of not only the LNC but Libertarians generally (at least in my experience of us). Something I’m surely guilty of myself as well. We tend not to trust any authority, even when we recruit, vette, hire, pay and then listen to their recommendations.

    Also, one item of the audit that is of concern is the division of responsibility among staff regarding processes that ensure no one individual can manipulate both the books and the cash (etc) — the solution to that is more staff which I hope will happen as we grow. What seemed clear from the Saturday night party is that the condo/LP offices are too small to house more staff. It felt crowded to me even before the crowd showed up – a large enough crowd that with the Oakland fire on my mind I felt a bit ill at ease especially in the basement area. I left for air outside once, and then left early.

    It might be time to begin looking at the possibility of selling this office building and finding something larger and better suited to our needs/growth . . . now. Not that an imminent move is required, but if something clearly better pops up we ought to (start preparing now) to jump on it.

  189. Thomas L. Knapp

    “the sometimes absurd level of micromanagement that appears to be the culture/tradition of the LNC.”

    In what universe?

    Every time ANYONE suggests ANY measure of accountability for either LNC or staff, all we hear is whining about “micromanagement” until the horrifying prospect of anyone ever having to account for any of his or her actions has been killed.

  190. dL

    The bottom line here is that we do not have a high enough concentration of Libertarians in any jurisdiction to take over any local government boards/councils anywhere

    I’m not sure why people persist in the fallacy that you must have a majority libertarian population in order to elect libertarians to office.

    http://www.yorktonthisweek.com/cash-no-credit-libertarians-shake-up-minneapolis-suburb-1.2397221

    Just to point out: Neither the Dems nor the Repubs have a majority concentration in the population.

  191. Andy

    D’s or R’s have majorities of registered voters in many places. Lots of people are not legally qualified to vote, and lots more are legally qualified to vote, but do not bother voting.

    If you want Libertarians to take over local government boards/councils, then you need a high enough concentration of people who are in a local jurisdiction to go to the polls to give Libertarian candidates enough votes to take over a local government board/council.

  192. Thomas L. Knapp

    “If you want Libertarians to take over local government boards/councils, then you need a high enough concentration of people who are in a local jurisdiction to go to the polls to give Libertarian candidates enough votes to take over a local government board/council.”

    That statement is true.

    And it is 100% compatible with dL’s claim that it is fallacious to believe that “you must have a majority libertarian population in order to elect libertarians to office.”

    People do not have to be libertarians to vote for Libertarian candidates. They only have to like what the Libertarian candidate represents or is offering better than they like what the other candidates represent or are offering.

    Obviously, libertarians are normally more likely than other people to like what Libertarian candidates offer, but that is not necessarily the case (you claim to be a libertarian, but you neither liked nor voted for the Libertarian candidate for president this year), and it entirely possible for a non-libertarian to see a Libertarian candidate’s particular platform and like it better than the platforms of the other candidates.

  193. Steve Scheetz

    The discussion about the $7000 that was spent and reported was one of those items that perhaps should not have been discussed for as long as it was discussed. It changed nothing for anyone anywhere regarding whether it should be moved or left where it was, and in that regard I wish someone had called the question within a couple minutes of the discussion, or at least asked Starchild’s question “what does it matter?”

    Regarding the necessity of a receipt or not? There should ALWAYS be a receipt for any kind of cash outlay. I don’t see this as micromanagement so much as covering the bases… The board serves at the pleasure of the membership, and therefore, it is incumbent upon the board to ensure that the membership remains happy and continues to donate money to the cause. YES, it does suck to have these discussions, (I posted on Facebook that only 3 people’s eyes started bleeding during the discussion LOL) but even given that, they are absolutely necessary…

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  194. George Phillies

    Someplace I recently came across a reference to a town in the Midwest with a Libertarian majority on the city council. They started paying cash for facilities, rather than buying them once form the builders and once from the bank. They set the sewer user fees to match costs, exactly as a private company would do. They incurred outraged comments of various local politicians.

  195. Andy

    “George Phillies
    December 12, 2016 at 12:56
    Someplace I recently came across a reference to a town in the Midwest with a Libertarian majority on the city council. They started paying cash for facilities, rather than buying them once form the builders and once from the bank. They set the sewer user fees to match costs, exactly as a private company would do. They incurred outraged comments of various local politicians.”

    I am not sure what it is that you are referring to here. The only place I am aware of where Libertarians ever took over a city council was in Big Water, Utah (a town with around 400 people) back in the 1980’s. I think that Libertarians “ran” the town for a couple of years.

  196. George Phillies

    Matt, thank you.

    Shane, can you possibly dig up the strategic plan you referenced. It would save the LNC a lot of money. I would like to put it up on LP-History.org, so soon as the top of it is fixed and MediaWIki is in a subdirectory where it belongs.

    Also, we should perhaps submit a bid to the LNC, a bid of -$1, namely we will pay you to accept our strategic plan, and attach to it all the old strategic plans on which the LNC spent lots of time and money.

  197. Shane

    George, that is funny. What I referenced was a targeting study on libertarians that concluded that we’re essentially anti-authoritarians that still park between the lines. Surprising conclusion? Lol, no.

    As to how to target “our” type was not at all specific from what I recall . . . which is par for the course for everyone I know of who has done these studies.

    You should check with Robert in LPHQ and ask for the McWilliams study done in 2007 or 2006. I recall owing $13k for it but think that the total cost was $30k.

    I’m not knocking the work. It was good. I question the application of the knowledge which I’ve never seen it put to good use (at least enough to justify the expense).

  198. Scott Lieberman

    Libertarians in virtually every state have gotten themselves elected to local, public offices. Many of them did it with ZERO financial or logistical help from the National LP, or their state LP. Operation Breakthrough got dozens of registered Libertarians elected to local offices in California by making tens of thousands of phone calls to recruit Libertarians to run for LOCAL offices.

    We don’t need no freakin’ studies. Not yet, anyway.

    All we need is an LNC and State Committees who have a laser-like focus on electing more Libertarians to public office. Sure, local Libertarians can sometimes get themselves elected to local office without any financial or logistical support from above. Note that I am not against the Statement of Principles. Obviously you want to vet candidates, even for local offices, to make sure they are squarely in the libertarian quadrant. And some of your winners will turn out to be duds. But many of them will move public policy in a libertarian direction while they are in office.

    Think how much better off the Libertarian Party would be if we can claim we tripled our number of elected officials every two years for the next decade. With all due respect to transparency fans, the media and the general public don’t care about transparency unless the LP does something bad (like staff getting too much money in expense reimbursements 🙂 —- However, politically interested Libertarians will take notice that all of a sudden they have Libertarian City Council members in their own county or state who they can use as mentor, and as a way of introducing libertarian ordinances at the local level.

  199. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Lieberman,

    Getting Libertarians elected to (or appointed to) public office is a great thing. It’s covered by three of the the six activities the LP is supposed to engage in according to the LNC’s bylaws, and one of seven (the last, minimized one) things that Nolan speculated the LP might accomplish in his essay calling for its formation.

    If you want a “laser-like focus” on it — that is, if you want the LP to ride your hobby horse, your hobby horse alone, and your hobby horse all the time — then ask the convention to modify the bylaws. Until such time as they do, the LNC having a “laser-like focus” on your hobby horse, your hobby horse alone, and your hobby horse all the time would be the LNC saying that they’re not going to do all the things that they EXIST FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF DOING.

  200. Scott Lieberman

    Mr. Knapp:

    Having circa 142 elected Libertarians in office right now, after 45 years of existence, is exactly the opposite of a laser-like focus on getting Libertarians elected to public office.

    The Libertarian Party needs to spend the next 45 years focused exclusively on electing Libertarians to public office just to make up for the last 45 years.

    The best way to , “enter into public information activities” is to have elected Libertarians get libertarian ordinances passed, and have LPHQ advertise these successes to our members, and to the media. What candidates say during campaigns is **essentially** meaningless. What matters is what they do AFTER they are elected. If you don’t get elected, then you don’t get to vote on legislation. Pressure groups educate, political parties elect. Period. Nothing you nor any of your LP allies say is going to change that fact.

  201. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Lieberman,

    You seem to be missing my point.

    I am all for getting Libertarians elected or appointed to public office. In fact, I’ve been appointed to public office myself and have helped several candidates win local elections.

    But if you want the LNC to think about nothing else, get the bylaws changed. Until you do, they have additional activities to engage in and a “laser-like focus” on the one thing would be an abdication of their additional responsibilities.

  202. Scott Lieberman

    Mr. Knapp:

    QED.

    VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

    http://thehayride.com/2016/05/why-im-not-quite-ready-to-be-a-libertarian-just-yet/

    “I’m probably voting for Gary Johnson this fall. I’m never returning to the Republican Party. Nominating a neo-fascist is the final straw. The Republican Party is no longer useful for limiting government or for preserving the values that truly make America great.

    But this does not mean I am becoming a Libertarian. Of all the political parties, it’s probably the closest one to my beliefs. However, changes need to happen before I take that leap and join.

    The Libertarians are doing some things right. Nominating Gary Johnson for president was the right thing to do. He maybe a bit bland and unlikable, but the first criticism may be a virtue this year compared to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The Libertarian “establishment” is willing to entertain pragmatic politics.

    Many libertarians like to claim that Ron Paul was successful in recruiting libertarians because of how radical he was. But how many Ron Paul supporters that you know are actually libertarians? Many of them are now Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters. Neither of those two have a libertarian bone in their bodies.

    Ron Paul is a libertarian, but he was also more a populist and populism is statism. That’s why the absurd contradiction known as “libertarian populism” never really took off. Libertarians are better off arguing how their policies can benefit the American people on the issues they care about without resorting to populist nonsense.

    Which brings me to my biggest objection to the Libertarian Party. Much of the party is still not serious about politics, policy, and governing. The challenge is a little more difficult with a philosophy designed to shrink and/or eliminate government, but it’s still needed in our politics.

    Socialists should not have the monopoly on combating social problems such as poverty and environmental degradation. Nationalists should not have the monopoly on keeping America safe and avoiding needless wars. Neither socialism nor nationalism wants to create wealth and opportunities for all Americans. Finally, both socialism and nationalism will further erode the liberties of Americans. Libertarians need to step up and provide alternatives to both.

    The Libertarian Party of Louisiana was very instrumental in killing the license plate database bill this session. But it’s one thing to kill terrible bills. You must propose realistic alternatives to bad policy. The Libertarian Party still fails at this at all levels.

    Not to mention there needs to be some work on developing serious, credible down ballot candidates. As America is heading to a possible three-party system, now is the opportunity.

    As Reagan and Buckley conservatism descend into little more than an intellectual movement, I will be looking for a new home for classical liberalism. At the same time, the knowledge of man’s fallible nature, the wisdom of the past, and reality must temper that love of freedom.

    The Libertarian Party is the best fit, for now. Let’s hope by the time their 2018 national convention comes to New Orleans they will have gotten their act together. Hopefully, I will paying my $25 annual membership in person.”

  203. George Phillies

    The actual purposes of the LNC are defined in their bylaws:

    ARTICLE 3: PURPOSES
    The Party is organized to implement and give voice to the principles embodied in the Statement of Principles by: (1) functioning as a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements; moving public policy in a libertarian direction by (2) building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office; (3) chartering affiliate parties throughout the United States and (4) promoting their growth and activities; (5) nominating candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States, and (6) supporting Party and affiliate party candidates for political office; and, (7) entering into public information activities.

    If you count, that’s seven major objectives. Of these, the LNC has succeeded with #5 (Presidential candidate), has performed #3 (issued charters covering much of the United States), has issued press releases (#7) and has usually followed #1 (be a separate and distinct political movement). #2 (win elections) has been a struggle. If you look at our spending, you’ll see we do very little toward #4 (affiliate support) except in terms of supporting Presidential ballot access. We specify to the FEC in our monthly filings that contrary to #6 we are not supporting candidates. Note that “Presidential Ballot Access” is actually not specified as an LNC action, though it clearly allowed under #6.

    The Lieberman proposal is to ignore everything except part of #6, and is clearly a violation of party Bylaws.

  204. Thomas L. Knapp

    Dr. Lieberman,

    I’m not sure what you think that piece QEDs. The author voted for the LP’s presidential candidate. OK, so he’s not going to send the LNC $25 for a newsletter subscription because the LP insists on being so damnably libertarian, but you got his vote, which is what you wanted, right?

  205. Andy

    “Scott Lieberman
    December 13, 2016 at 09:33
    Mr. Knapp:

    Having circa 142 elected Libertarians in office right now, after 45 years of existence, is exactly the opposite of a laser-like focus on getting Libertarians elected to public office.”

    This is a pretty pathetic state of affairs for the Libertarian Party, considering that around 12-14 years ago we had something like 600-650 Libertarians elected to local offices. So the party had actually gone downhill by this measure of success.

  206. Andy

    “Scott Lieberman
    December 13, 2016 at 08:18
    Libertarians in virtually every state have gotten themselves elected to local, public offices. Many of them did it with ZERO financial or logistical help from the National LP, or their state LP. Operation Breakthrough got dozens of registered Libertarians elected to local offices in California by making tens of thousands of phone calls to recruit Libertarians to run for LOCAL offices.”

    I was there during those days, and I was in fact one of the people who made some of those phone calls. It was a group effort, and I’m sure that there were people who made more calls than I did, I’m just saying that I made some of them.

  207. Andy

    “Many libertarians like to claim that Ron Paul was successful in recruiting libertarians because of how radical he was. But how many Ron Paul supporters that you know are actually libertarians? ”

    I have met LOTS of Ron Paul supporters who are Libertarians, or self identified small “l” libertarians. Ron Paul is actually the #1 name that I have heard over the years when people say who it was that “made” them a Libertarian/libertarian.

  208. paulie

    Thanks to Paulie, Starchild, and the other livebloggers!

    And to you as well, and all who read, commented and attended the meeting – online or in person.

  209. paulie

    populism is statism

    Not necessarily, although it often can be. If this was always true, it would follow that elitism is anti-statism, as well as that anti-statism is elitism, and that’s obviously not true.

  210. Thomas L. Knapp

    Populism is a formula for class theory which can be modified for use by almost any ideology. The formula is “righteous disenfranchised masses versus wicked power elites.”

    Libertarian class theory of the 19th century was definitely populist, and definitely anti-statist. Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer described the “productive class” (workers, tradesmen, merchants, et al.) as the righteous disenfranchised masses and the “political class” (those whose careers are powered by the state or its favors) as the wicked power elites.

    For Marx, the two classes of importance were the industrial proletariat and the bourgeoisie (although he recognized additional classes such as the lumpenproletariat (unskilled workers and peasants) and the petit bourgeoisie (small business owners who didn’t hire labor).

    Modern American populism has mostly been what I call “peckerwood populism.” It treats the white lower, working and middle classes as the righteous disenfranchised masses and sets them against pretty much everyone else (immigrants, brown people, “THE JEWS,” etc. — anyone who’s available and convenient) as the wicked power elites. Which is pretty fucking dumb, but is nonetheless a theme of recurrent popularity — Thomas Watson, Huey Long, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump, and others have all trafficked in it to one degree or another.

    But American populism doesn’t HAVE to be peckerwood populism. If the Libertarian Party is ever going to be successful, it will probably be carried to that success on a wave of Comte/Dunoyer type populism.

  211. Carol Moore/Secession.net

    Dang, had to schedule my gall bladder removal on the 9th and missed all the fun! Same old debates, a lot of new faces, I see! (Hmm, is Shane the individual whose wife did the OLD LP Website with all those years of content that just totally disappeared? I can’t remember the exact outcome of Mr. Moulton’s quest for it, but I don’t think it was positive.)

    ANYHOOOOOO…. Still pissed off that I have to waste so much time dealing with the fucking abortion prohibitionists and their fellow travelers (including on the LNC) so I STILL don’t have Secession.net in WordPress or ready for 2017! The one good thing about Trump and his fetus fetish fanatics is they are getting lots of pro-choice libertarians mad and I hopefully can turn almost all functions of the group over to Gun Ho pro-choicers in the next few months.

    Then I can start the LIBERTARIAN PARTY SECESSION COUNCIL — ha ha Just kidding. (Joke on the “Pro-Life Libertarian Party Council” that wants to “council” us all on abortion.)

    LP SECESSION CAUCUS good enough. A nice libertarian decentralist platform will solve all the problems between the anarchists and minarchists since no real libertarian will use police or military force against secessionists who are not promoting force and fraud. 2018 New Orleans, here I come!

    As for messaging, I’m rather exhausted on that topic. Just my comment that “Look at my boobs, be/vote libertarian” is a really stupid message, whether its goal is to bring people in or drive them away.

  212. Matt

    ““Look at my boobs, be/vote libertarian” is a really stupid message,”

    I disagree. It’s a wonderful message, wonderfully presented.

  213. Matt

    “Modern American populism has mostly been what I call “peckerwood populism.” It treats the white lower, working and middle classes as the righteous disenfranchised masses and sets them against pretty much everyone else (immigrants, brown people, “THE JEWS,” etc. — anyone who’s available and convenient) as the wicked power elites. Which is pretty fucking dumb, but is nonetheless a theme of recurrent popularity — Thomas Watson, Huey Long, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump, and others have all trafficked in it to one degree or another.”

    Modern American populism has both Sanders and Trump wings. And peckerwood populism doesn’t hold that immigrants and brown people are power elites, it holds that they are being used by the power elites to attack the white working and middle class. It has been much the same in Europe, where their own peckerwood populists attack Muslims and immigrants (who are generally not well off and in no sense elites) as well as elite or allegedly elite elements. I’ll agree that Ron Paul’s mix of libertarianism, conservatism and populism appealed to a lot of people that went on to support anti-liberty candidates such as Sanders and especially Trump, but not with the categoric overreach that all populism is necessarily statist. Andy is likewise correct that many LP supporters started out as Ron Paul supporters; that both of those things are true just means that Ron Paul appealed to a diverse group of people, as any politician who achieves even modest success must do.

    “But American populism doesn’t HAVE to be peckerwood populism. If the Libertarian Party is ever going to be successful, it will probably be carried to that success on a wave of Comte/Dunoyer type populism.”

    I agree. I just don’t see any easy way to get there from where we are now. But it can, should and hopefully will happen.

  214. Andy

    Matt said: ” Andy is likewise correct that many LP supporters started out as Ron Paul supporters; that both of those things are true just means that Ron Paul appealed to a diverse group of people, as any politician who achieves even modest success must do.”

    A lot of people did join the Libertarian Party because of Ron Paul. The fact that more people did not join the Libertarian Party from the movement that Ron Paul created has more to do with the failures of the Libertarian Party than it has to do with anything that that Ron Paul did. Just look at the last three LP presidential tickets. They were either Libertarian Lite (at best) or not really libertarian at all.

    I was heavily involved in the Ron Paul r3VOLution from 207-2012, and I can tell you that a breakdown of Ron Paul’s support was as follows (not necessarily in order):

    1) Libertarians, both current and former LP members.

    2) Small “l” libertarians.

    3) Independents.

    4) People who previously did not vote or pay attention to politics (“Dr. Paul cured my apathy.” was a popular catch phrase);

    5) Paleoconservatives (some of whom were, or had been involved with the Constitution Party).

    6) Rank-and-file Republicans who were inspired by Dr. Paul’s message (some of whom had never heard a message like that before).

    7) Anti-war and pro-civil liberties leftists (some of whom had previously supported the Green Party).

    The majority of Ron Paul’s support did not come from typical Republican ranks.

  215. Shane

    Carol, seriously? You totally just completely fabricate whatever you like with a known intent to hurt people’s reputations . . . but you should never bring in someone’s family members into your bullshit.

    Before you fabricated that it was my “sister” and now, my wife? Neither have ever been involved in any of my businesses. You know that but think you can publish bullshit with an attempt to harm?

    Warned you once.

  216. Matt

    Yes, it was partially the fault of the LP that it did not capture a larger share of Ron Paul supporters. But the fact that many of them went on to support extremely anti-liberty candidates such as Trump and Sanders (especially Trump) shows that many of them were never libertarian-leaning at all, and the LP neither could nor should have ever brought them in. Keep in mind that many of these people didn’t just support Sanders and Trump as lesser evils, but rather supported them enthusiastically. Ron Paul and Donald Trump were both very popular among the racist set, and that’s a fact regardless of whether either candidate sought such support. That’s not who the LP should try to appeal to. So, it’s a myth that all of Ron Paul’s supporters were libertarian leaning or should have been sought after by the LP. Some of them, yes, but others not so much.

  217. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Thank you everyone who live-blogged and showed interest. I welcome your input here or at my email. It is a pleasure to serve the Party.

    There were a lot of good things that happened and some very disappointing things, but such is Party governance. Win some, lose some. I really encourage all of you to continue to follow the LNC list and interact. Some of the issues from this weekend are being hashed out (and still debated – and there are some motions to amend or reconsider that I am considering) being done on the list.

    The decision to go to an archive site for the past content is, IMHO, a terrible idea, but we shall see how it is implemented.

  218. Michael H. Wilson

    Thomas Knapp that piece you wrote above about peckerwood populism is great. I’ve never called it that myself but you are on the money. Have you published anything longer on that? And if so where may I find it. I’d like to post it in one of the local groups if you don’t mind.

    Dr. Scott Lieberman, I agree we need to run more people and I have agreed with that for years but too often I see people running who have a limited idea as to what this is all about or what the alternatives are. Too often I hear of people who joined the LP because we are pro gun, pro drugs and have little knowledge of anything else and those who recruit them never don’t get beyond an “I Side With” Q & A with them. These people then run for city council thinking that they can do something about Social Security if they win.

  219. Michael H. Wilson

    There is a don’t in there that don’t make sense, ” never don’t get ” Please excuse my poor grammar..

  220. Joseph Buchman

    Steve Scheetz @ December 12, 2016 at 12:34 wrote:

    “The discussion about the $7000 that was spent and reported was one of those items that perhaps should not have been discussed . . . or at least asked Starchild’s question “what does it matter?””

    The board recruits an Audit Committee of “experts.” Those experts hire an outside auditor. The auditor makes adjustments and offers management recommendations/suggestions. The committee of “experts” reviews that with the auditor and comes to majority agreement (in this case 2 of 3 members agree with the auditor; one, Mr. Starr, doesn’t). That gets submitted to the board.

    Then, the board debates whether one item in that audit should have been done differently.

    The effect of that is to diminish the likelihood that said auditor would be willing to be hired again knowing such a micromanaging culture is in place. I’m glad the vote did not overturn the auditor’s and committee’s decision regarding that $7K.

    “Regarding the necessity of a receipt or not? There should ALWAYS be a receipt for any kind of cash outlay.”

    I get your firm conviction on that. Apparently that is not the case in other large organizations, nor was it the auditor’s recommendation. When the cost of the time spent chasing down receipts for small dollar amounts exceeds the amount spent, it’s not very efficient. Personally I always leave a tip for housekeeping whenever I stay in a hotel, cash with one of those “this is a GIFT not a taxable tip” Libertarian cards. How do I get a receipt for that? And if I were on business for the LP should I expect to be trusted about that (maybe even encouraged to do it to spread our message), and reimbursed. Or should I either track down the cleaning staff to ask for a receipt, or just eat it?

    Bottom line, when you hire a brain surgeon, or an auditor, while it’s fine to get a second or third opinion, it’s generally not advisable to do the surgery yourself.

  221. Chuck Moulton

    I agree with Dr. Buchman. Sometimes the cost of compliance with a policy exceeds the usefulness of the data gathered. The LNC has repeatedly micromanaged in an overly burdensome way. Requiring receipts for small amounts is one example of that. Requiring minute by minute clocking of tasks is another example. (If there afe problems with a particular employee, the policy can always be tightened.) They are being pennywise, but pound foolish.

  222. Thomas L. Knapp

    “When the cost of the time spent chasing down receipts for small dollar amounts exceeds the amount spent, it’s not very efficient.”

    Sounds like the best policy on something like that is some kind of per diem — “we’re giving you $X/day to spend on miscellaneous stuff, you don’t have to provide receipts on that, it’s just your money for sundries. The categories/costs/amounts we expect receipts for reimbursement of are [insert here], everything else is at your option and comes out of that $X daily allowance.”

  223. Chuck Moulton

    I prefer per diems in general anyway. If the recipient wants to be frugal and save, that’s his perogative and he can be rewarded accordingly. Micromanaging such spending seems silly.

    However, my understanding is this receipts policy goes beyond travel.

  224. Steve Scheetz

    Dr Buchman, I agree with you regarding the placement, my issue was with the amount of time it took to get there.

    I like the idea of per diem as well, but there needs to be a system in place so that there is no perception of abuse. The LNC serves at the pleasure of the membership, and that is my reasoning for being supportive of receipts.

    I remember a number of companies who flat out refused to pay me for expenses without a receipt, and I dealt with it because that was just the way it was. In this case, it is what it is, and that is that.. the perdiem thing is something that could be looked at, and it probably should, but baring that, there is a system.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  225. Steve Scheetz

    on a small side note, I don’t see this as performing the brain surgery themselves over the brain surgeon so much as them taking the brain surgeons recommendations, going with a certain bit of surgery in the back of the brain, but electing to not dig in on the front side given that the operating room in which they are working is not conducive to that particular type of procedure. 😉

    Steve

  226. Steve Scheetz

    Apparently, some members of the LNC are considering changing the scope of the committee designed to solicit bids to outside marketing agencies in order to consider the branding of the LP…

    This is a disaster in the making… There is a REASON for having an LNC, and that is to control our message. We have seen what happens when a number of people put a very small group of representatives in charge of a specific project. In some cases we wind up with prohibition.. in others, we wind up with the federal reserve bank. however, in ALL instances, when we allow a small group of people to be in charge of the message hundreds of thousands, if not millions are looking to see as a message for them, for an entire political party, we have a message the majority will be unhappy with. This means that the “Up to $100,000” being looked at to spend on this project might as well have been flushed down the toilet, as Chuck Moulton so eloquently stated in his remarks. at the end of the meeting… (yes, I read IPR, and I talk to Chuck, on a regular basis since we became friends in Montgomery County PA more than a decade ago. PLEASE, for the love of the party, do not walk down this path of expediency. it is NOT who we are, and it is most definitely NOT what we are about.

    PLEASE, to anyone who has concerns about 3 people beginning a quest that would spend up to $100K on a branding message that we might all hate and never use, contact the nearest convenient LNC members… MAYBE ALL OF THEM… Remind them that we are already running a deficit in the budget of 2017 and let’s not consider increasing this deficit by $100K on a project that has failed every time it has been attempted.

    I am in favor of doing targeted market research, and I agree with Larry Sharpe that we should adjust the verbiage of our message based upon metrics currently in place and those to be put in place during the market research project, but I disagree that we should be working on this given the scope of the money and past performance of similar ventures.

    If it is a good idea, I believe we should solicit the state affiliates to kick in some cash in order to help with their own individual efforts. This is a suggestion, and it is one I am already working on here in Pennsylvania ahead of our April convention.

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  227. Michael H. Wilson

    I hope Steve is wrong about the branding issue.

    After all these years and all the talk about branding the LNC is still screwing around on this issue. Put a damn banner across the top of the Web site that reads “Civil Liberties, Economic Freedom and Peace.” Then develop some issue brochures, maybe a dozen, around that theme. Then go to a bar and forget anything else. Quit messing with the message.

  228. Thomas L. Knapp

    Well, we do need help with our branding.

    I mean, we replaced a well-known, instantly recognizable, globally beloved logo.

    With a banana peel.

    But I agree this would be $100k misspent. History says we’d either reject good recommendations or accept terrible ones. We can do that without spending six figures on advice.

  229. Scott Lieberman

    “Thomas L. Knapp December 19, 2016 at 04:39

    “But I agree this would be $100k misspent. History says we’d either reject good recommendations or accept terrible ones. We can do that without spending six figures on advice.”

    GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

    I agree with Mr. Knapp.

    Spending money on branding for the National LP is a bad idea when money is tight. It might even be a bad idea when money is not so tight 🙂

    Unless the branding from the National Party is horrible, what the LNC and LPHQ staff does is essentially meaningless in terms of Libertarians winning local, non-partisan elections. Go out there and win those elections, and ignore the communiques from the the national Libertarian Party.

  230. D. Frank Robinson

    “Where’s the beef?”
    The LP needs to address issues WITH concrete proposals for reform that diminish government power and spread it among as many people as possible as interim measures that do not undercut the goal of eventual abolition of the State. PR paint jobs cannot overcome a lack of Innovative policy proposals.
    See link for a reminder of a tremendously successful marketing meme. Everything old enough can be new again.

  231. Thomas L. Knapp

    One thing that the LP could do that would presumably not cost $100k would be to maintain a shadow cabinet populated with reasonably qualified individuals (e.g. an attorney for AG, veterans for Secretary of Defense, Army and Navy, someone with a credible farm background for Agriculture, and so on) who could address current issues via press release and interview and so forth with solid policy proposals based on the LP’s platform.

    A decent group blog for the shadow cabinet to publish on would run less than a thousand bucks in theme and developer costs even if there were no volunteers willing to build it for free. The cabinet members would be volunteers, as are the members of the (if it still exists) LP’s publications vetting committee.

    Of course it would be especially good if the shadow cabinet members were more qualified in conventional ways than the members of the actual cabinet.

  232. Michael H. Wilson

    Thomas Knapp wrote “I mean, we replaced a well-known, instantly recognizable, globally beloved logo.

    With a banana peel.”

    Mr. Knapp hit this one out of the park. Something positive was replaced with something no one could identify with. The Statue of Liberty helped us in a positive way. Let’s go back to it. It will be worth the costs.

  233. Starchild

    I share the sentiments expressed here about not paying political consultants a bunch of money to tell us how to “brand” ourselves.

    I’m also not a fan of the current logo, and would prefer we return to using some version of the Statue of Liberty (preferably a more attractive one in which her face is not hidden in shadow).

    The Shadow Cabinet idea that Tom Knapp mentions (December 19, 2016 at 10:22) is also a good one, imho. I believe it’s been proposed from time to time without ever being enacted, but I haven’t heard a persuasive reason not to do it. I’d prefer to see cabinet members elected at conventions, but even if they were appointed by the LNC it could be a worthwhile endeavor.

    As always, I would welcome proposed motion language for such a change, especially if you write it up in the form of an appropriately placed and numbered addition to the LNC Policy Manual (online at https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.prod.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/19131713/LNC_Policy_Manual_Adopted_2016-12-11.pdf).

  234. Andy

    “Starchild
    December 27, 2016 at 13:24
    I share the sentiments expressed here about not paying political consultants a bunch of money to tell us how to ‘brand’ ourselves.”

    This would be a total waste of time and money. If Libertarians want to know what resonates with various segments of the public, there is a way to find this out for free, and that is to get off of their asses, step out of their cocoons, AND ACTUALLY GO OUT AND TALK TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THEMSELVES.

    A good time to do this is during the course of a Libertarian Party ballot access drive. Over the next two years, the Libertarian Party could run ballot access drives in Massachusetts, Connecticut (the party has ballot access for President in 2016, and I believe for 2 US House seats in 2018, but will still have to petition for every other office), Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Georgia (the party has ballot access for all statewide offices, but still has to petition for ballot access for every other office). Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, Arkansas, Arizona (the party does not have to petition for President, but every other office has to petition to get into a primary), and possibly some others (I think New Mexico is currently in the same position as Arizona). I know that in California, all of the local offices are officially non-partisan, and I believe that all of them require petition signatures to get on the ballot (I know a Libertarian in Los Angeles who recently did a petition drive to get on the ballot for a City Council race). I might be missing a few places, but this is a good run down of where Libertarians can go out and collect petition signatures to place LP candidates on the ballot.

    So you don’t live in one of these states, or maybe you do live in one of these states, but it is too early to start gathering ballot access petition signatures, and you want to go out and do something right now? Great, grab a stack of voter registration forms, and go out and ask people if they want to register to vote, and if you live in a state that has voter registration by political party (I think around 26 states have partisan voter registration), you can ask people if they will register under the Libertarian Party banner. What if they don’t know what the Libertarian Party is, or what if they ask you questions about the party? This is GREAT, BECAUSE THAT’S WHY YOU ARE OUT THERE, AS YOU ARE THE PERSON WHO TALKS TO THEM, TELLS THEM ABOUT THE PARTY, AND ANSWERS THEIR QUESTIONS. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO OFFERS THEM A LIBERTARIAN PAMPHLET OR FLYER. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO TELLS THEM WHERE THE LOCAL MEETINGS ARE. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ASKS THEM TO JOIN AS DUES PAYING MEMBERS. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ASKS THEM TO SIGN A CONTACT SHEET THAT INCLUDES FIELDS FOR THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, EMAIL ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER, AND YOU ARE THE ONE WHO TURNS THE CONTACT LIST IN TO YOUR LOCAL AND STATE PARTY, AND TO THE NATIONAL PARTY. What if you live in a state that does not have partisan voter registration? YOU CAN STILL GO OUT AND REGISTER PEOPLE TO VOTE ANYWAY, BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY WHILE YOU ARE GETTING THEM TO FILL OUT THE VOTER REGISTRATION FORM, AND YOU CAN STILL HAND THEM A LIBERTARIAN PAMPHLET OR FLYER, AND YOU CAN STILL ASK INTERESTED PEOPLE TO SIGN UP TO BE ON THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY’S CONTACT LIST.

    You can also do this if you are in a state that has any pro-liberty ballot initiative, referendum, or recall petitions happening. Get a copy of them, and go out and ask the public to sign them. Once you get them stopped, YOU NOW HAVE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO PUT IN A PLUG FOR THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY, OFFER THEM A LIBERTARIAN PAMPHLET OR FLYER, AND ASK THEM TO SIGN UP TO BE ON THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY’S CONTACT LIST.

    What if you do not live in a state that has an initiative, referendum, or recall process, or what if there are not pro-liberty initiative, referendum, or recall petitions going on in your state? You can just make your own plebiscite petition, or download one off the internet. A plebiscite petition is a non-binding petition, as in it is not to place an issue on the ballot, it is done to gain publicity for an issue, and to urge a government body to take certain actions. You could do a plebiscite petition on a large variety of issues. Do one to Stop NSA Spying. Do one for any pro-liberty issue. If you want to make it more “official” you can actually send your filled out plebiscite petitions to your local, state, or federal government officials. Doing a plebiscite still give you a reason to go out and talk to the public, AND ONCE YOU GET THEM STOPPED, YOU CAN PLUG THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY, OFFER THEM A LIBERTARIAN PAMPHLET OR FLYER, AND ASK THEM TO SIGN UP FOR THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY’S ANNOUNCEMENT LIST.

    You can still do this without having a petition or voter registration form. THE KEY IS TO JUST GO OUT AND TALK TO PEOPLE. You can go hand out pamphlets or flyers. I recommend World’s Smallest Political Quizzes and jury nullification pamphlets/flyers. JUST GO OUT AND DO IT. There are literally MILLIONS of people out there waiting to hear from you. Sure, not everyone cares about what we have to say, and some people are outright hostile, but so what, you are there for the MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE OPEN TO HEARING WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY.

    There is NO REASON to hire some outside marketing firm to do this, especially if the marketing firm are not libertarians and are just mercenaries out to make a buck. If Libertarians would just GET UP OFF OF THEIR ASSES AND GO TALK TO PEOPLE, YOU’LL HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED. You can compare notes with other Libertarians WHO ACTUALLY GET OFF OF THEIR ASSES AND TALK TO PEOPLE during LP meetings, or on message boards. Conversations about actual data compiled by actual Libertarians who actually went in the field themselves and talked to people would be far more valuable discussions to have than some of the other bullshit that goes on at LP meetings and on message boards frequented by Libertarians.

    “I’m also not a fan of the current logo, and would prefer we return to using some version of the Statue of Liberty (preferably a more attractive one in which her face is not hidden in shadow).”

    All of this talk about the logo IS A WASTE OF TIME. NOBODY GIVES A RAT’S ASS ABOUT THE F’ING LOGO! LOTS OF TIME AND MONEY WAS WASTED ON THE PREVIOUS LNC ABOUT THE LOGO, AND IT DID NOT LEAD TO ONE NEW MEMBER SIGNING UP FOR THE PARTY, OR ONE LIBERTARIAN GETTING ELECTED TO OFFICE, OR ONE PERSON NOT BEING CONVICTED FOR A VICTIMLESS CRIME.

    Sitting around arguing about the logo is like arguing about how the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic while the ship is in the process of sinking.

    HOW ABOUT FOCUS ON MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES?

    Right now some people in the Libertarian Party are on a sugar high from the election because they think that something great was accomplished by Johnson/Weld obtaining 3.3% of the vote, which, while nice, was actually an UNDER-PERFORMANCE given the dynamics of this election, which were the EASIEST set of circumstances that the LP has ever run a presidential ticket under. Not only did they under-perform when it came to getting votes, they GROSSLY UNDER-PERFORMED in what I would call the FAR MORE IMPORTANT CATEGORY OF GETTING THE LIBERTARIAN MESSAGE OUT TO THE PUBLIC, AND CONVERTING MORE PEOPLE OVER TO BEING SOLID LIBERTARIANS. Johnson/Weld ran under a message that was very watered down Libertarian at best, and I think that it is fair to say that there were several parts of their message that WAS NOT LIBERTARIAN AT ALL. They also RAN FROM THE LIBERTARIAN LABEL MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGHOUT THE CAMPAIGN (SOME OF THEIR CAMPAIGN ADS DID NOT EVEN MENTION THE WORD LIBERTARIAN, OR EVEN HAVE ANYTHING IN THE ADS THAT MADE THEM SOUND LIKE THEY WERE LIBERTARIANS). Then, as if things were not already bad enough, THEY HEAPED PRAISE ON ONE OF THEIR OPPONENTS IN THE RACE, AN OPPONENT WHO IS NOT EVEN REMOTELY LIBERTARIAN, OR HONEST, IN HILLARY CLINTON. I’ve been involved with the Libertarian Party and movement for over 20 years now, AND I’VE NEVER MET A LIBERTARIAN WHO HAD ANYTHING GOOD TO SAY ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON.

    Now some Libertarians are also celebrating what our candidates did for other offices. Sure, we got some higher than average vote totals for some other offices, and this is nice, BUT WE ONLY HAD 15 LIBERTARIANS ACTUALLY GET ELECTED TO ANYTHING, AND THESE WERE ALL TO LOW LEVEL OFFICES, MOST OF WHICH ARE NON-PARTISAN. One of the few, or maybe the only, partisan race that we won was that we got a Libertarian elected to a partisan county office in Jefferson County, Kentucky, which is where Louisville is located, and this is nice, BUT IT IS AN OFFICE THAT DOES NOT DO MUCH, BECAUSE THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE MERGED WITH JEFFERSON COUNTY, AND MOST OF THE POWER IS WITH THE CITY OFFICES, SO THIS COUNTY OFFICE THAT ONE OF OUR CANDIDATES WON DOES NOT DO MUCH OF ANYTHING.

    15 Libertarian elected to low level offices in the entire country in the 2016 general election is not cause for great celebration. The Libertarian Party actually had more people elected to local offices back in the early 2000’s than it has right now. I believe that is was back around 2002 that the Libertarian Party had around 600-650 people elected to local offices. What’s the current count of elected Libertarian Party office holders? I think that it is around 143. THIS IS NOT A SIGN OF PROGRESS! Maybe if we had 143 elected Libertarian Sheriffs, who had a department that was filled with Libertarian Deputies, this would be a sign of progress, but this is NOT what we have. Thousands of counties across this country, yet we have a grand total of ZERO Libertarian Sheriff’s Departments. We have LESS LIBERTARIANS ELECTED TO LOW LEVEL LOCAL OFFICES THAN WE DID BACK IN THE EARLY 2000’s.

    The Libertarian Party has gone YET ANOTHER ELECTION CYCLE WITHOUT ELECTING ONE PERSON TO A SEAT IN A STATE LEGISLATURE. The Libertarian Party has not elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature in 16 YEARS, AND THE LAST TIME THIS HAPPENED, THAT CANDIDATE ENDED UP QUITTING THE LP AND SWITCHING TO REPUBLICAN A FEW MONTHS INTO THEIR TERM (i recall the reason given at the time was that they disagreed with the Libertarian stance on gay marriage), SO THE LAST TIME THAT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY ELECTED ANYONE TO A SEAT IN A STATE LEGISLATURE WHO ACTUALLY REMAINED AS A LIBERTARIAN FOR THE DURATION OF THEIR TERM IN OFFICE WAS BACK IN EITHER 1998 OR 1996, SO WE ARE TALKING 18-20 YEARS AGO.

    Think about this for a moment. A child that was born the last time the Libertarian Party elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature, IS NOW 16 YEARS OLD, and a child who was born the last time the Libertarian Party elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature who actually finished out their term as a Libertarian, IS NOW SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 18-20 YEARS OLD.

    The LP ran around 600 candidates this year. Back in the year 2000, the LP ran around 1,600 candidates. LP membership is up to around 20,000 and something now, but it was around 33,000 16 years ago (and the population of the country has increased over the last 16 years).

    So by most measures, the LP is NOT a successful organization. Getting 3.3% of the vote for President may sound impressive to some people, BUT THAT IS ONLY IF THEY DO NOT LOOK ANY DEEPER INTO THE FACTS SURROUNDING THIS SITUATION IN WHICH THIS OCCURRED, AND HOW THIS WAS ACHIEVED.

    3.3% was not really that great under these “perfect storm” market conditions, but even more importantly, it was done while WATERING DOWN, AND IN SEVERAL CASES, VIOLATING, THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY’S PLATFORM, AND EVEN DOWNPLAYING THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY LABEL.

    Are we involved in this stuff just to get votes for the sake of getting votes? What is the point of getting votes if you WATER DOWN AND/OR CALL FOR MULTIPLE LIBERTARIAN PARTY PLATFORM VIOLATIONS, AND DOWNPLAY THAT YOU ARE EVEN RUNNING AS A LIBERTARIAN PARTY CANDIDATE?

    If you are a Libertarian Party member who think that we are in this just to get votes for the sake of getting votes, you ought to just quit the Libertarian Party and go join the Democrats or the Republicans, because you will have a much easier time getting lots of votes in one of those parties.

  235. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    You write:

    “All of this talk about the logo IS A WASTE OF TIME. NOBODY GIVES A RAT’S ASS ABOUT THE F’ING LOGO!”

    When you’re out collecting ballot access petitions and handing out Libertarian Party literature, would you rather that literature had a clear, familiar and very memorable graphic on it of the statue of liberty, or a cartoon of a banana peel that looks like it’s waiting for someone to slip and fall on it?

  236. George Phillies

    Good to see that Andy understands the virtues of brevity and serenity.

    However for sane meanings of “ballot access”, you cannot run a “ballot access” drive in Massachusetts.

  237. dL

    Apparently, some members of the LNC are considering changing the scope of the committee designed to solicit bids to outside marketing agencies in order to consider the branding of the LP…

    Donald J. Trump as POTUS is all the branding you will ever need. If you can’t effectively market the thing under those conditions, “clueless” would be the kindest thing one could call you.

  238. Andy

    Thomas L. Knapp
    December 27, 2016 at 19:57
    Andy,

    You write:

    ‘All of this talk about the logo IS A WASTE OF TIME. NOBODY GIVES A RAT’S ASS ABOUT THE F’ING LOGO!’

    When you’re out collecting ballot access petitions and handing out Libertarian Party literature, would you rather that literature had a clear, familiar and very memorable graphic on it of the statue of liberty, or a cartoon of a banana peel that looks like it’s waiting for someone to slip and fall on it?”

    Tom, I do not believe that this makes a difference at all. I have never encountered one person who talked about the party’s logo. This is such a non-issue that it was never worth bringing up in the first place, especially given all of the far more important issues with which we ought to be dealing if the party is to ever get anywhere.

    If we had just gotten say 10-12 million votes for President, elected the first Libertarian to a US House seat, elected 12 Libertarians to seats in state legislatures, elected a Libertarian Sheriff who had a team of Libertarians willing to serve as Deputies, and boosted party membership up to say 50,000-60,000 dues paying members, and if we had greatly increased public awareness of Libertarian issues, including things that people can implement that do not rely on electing Libertarians to office, like jury nullification of victimless crimes, then I’d say that this would be cause for celebration, and if at that point some people wanted to take some time to discuss some less important issues, like what the freaking party logo is, then I’d say go for it, because we were finally having a big breakthrough and have earned ourselves some time to waste on issues of less importance.

  239. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    If you are a low-information/short attention span voter, who got a Libertarian Party brochure from Andy Jacobs and thought it was pretty cool, then you went to vote, which ballot symbol would more likely spark your memory to vote LP:

    1) Statue of Liberty; or

    2) Harambe’s discarded banana peel?

  240. Andy

    “George Phillies
    December 27, 2016 at 20:08
    Good to see that Andy understands the virtues of brevity and serenity.

    However for sane meanings of ‘ballot access’, you cannot run a ‘ballot access; drive in Massachusetts.”

    George, you are getting too anal with the technicalities here. I am quite familiar with the ballot access laws in Massachusetts, and I am aware of the fact that the petitions are to place the Libertarian Party candidates on the ballot, and that there is no petition in Massachusetts to place the party itself on the ballot. You can also conduct a voter registration drive in Massachusetts to gain party status, but even if you did this, you’d still have to gather petition signatures to place your candidates on the ballot, with the exception of the presidential candidate.

    There are also other states that have no petition for party status, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

    This technical issue that you brought up has NOTHING to with what I was talking about, nor does it detract from my point.

  241. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    December 27, 2016 at 20:42
    Andy,

    If you are a low-information/short attention span voter, who got a Libertarian Party brochure from Andy Jacobs and thought it was pretty cool, then you went to vote, which ballot symbol would more likely spark your memory to vote LP:

    1) Statue of Liberty; or

    2) Harambe’s discarded banana peel?”

    I don’t think that it really matters that much. Low information voters who vote for Libertarian Party candidates are more likely to do so because they wanted to cast a protest vote and Libertarian Party was the only “third party” or “independent” that they knew about, or that was on their ballot, or because they heard that Libertarians supported an issue that they supported, like legalizing weed, or whatever, or maybe because they got a positive impression of the Libertarian Party from somebody they encountered in person, or because of something they saw online or on TV.

    I really don’t think that the logo issue was ever important, and I think that the last LNC wasted WAY TOO MUCH TIME AND MONEY on it.

    Here is a FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE TO PONDER: How come there are so few people who bother to hand out any Libertarian Party pamphlets or fliers to the public?

    Instead of worrying about which logo might be on a Libertarian Party pamphlet or flyer, how about address the fact that very few pamphlets and flyers are actually being handed out (certainly far less than there could be)?

    I am one of a tiny handful of people who have done Libertarian pamphleetering on a large scale (there is a strong possibility that I am the #1 pamphleteer in the history of the LP, and if I’m not #1, I’d have to be close to it), and I can tell you that I’ve often had to print up my own materials, because nobody in the party bothered to give me any, or the party was so disorganized that they did not even have any, and there have been many occasions where I spent my own money on this with no reimbursement.

    I know that Libertarian petitioner Jake Witmer actually went out and made his own cards that had information for the Libertarian Party on one side, and information about jury nullification on the other side. He handed out thousands of these cards while gathering Libertarian Party ballot access signatures.

    Why are so few people doing stuff like this? We should be doing this on a large scale every time the party does a ballot access drive, yet we do not. Even when there are no ballot access drives going on, we should still have Libertarians going out and engaging with the public on a regular basis. We should have brigades of Libertarians going out and hanging Libertarian door hangers on people’s homes. Libertarians ought to make it a goal between now and the next general election to put a Libertarian door hanger on the door of every home in whatever city or town where they live (excluding homes that are not accessible due to being in gated communities or being in locked apartment buildings (unlocked apartment buildings are great for this though, because you can hit a lot of doors in one stop)).

  242. dL

    Tom, I do not believe that this makes a difference at all. I have never encountered one person who talked about the party’s logo.

    Well, people don’t talk about the apple logo when they buy apple products. It’s just that when they see the logo, they buy the product.

    The old LP logo wasn’t very social icon friendly. However, the newer one, “the flame,” doesn’t mean anything, has no association with anything. There’s no rule that a logo has to remain static in appearance over the time. Indeed, it is usually not a bad thing to update the design every now and then. The SoL logo could be simplified to better accommodate the times of social media web and mobile apps than, say, the old days of stationary print. Personally, I prefer the porcupine version, but I doubt most get the animal or the meaning. And “skunk party” is not very flattering…

  243. Thomas L. Knapp

    I would say that the logo was not a big deal, either.

    We had it for what, 45 years? It wasn’t broken. There was no need to fix it. It was instantly recognizable and closely and positively associated with the party.

    But for some reason the LNC felt the need to spend time and money replacing the longstanding, instantly recognizable, closely and positively associated logo.

    With a banana peel.

    It’s like Nike made a big deal of replacing their swoosh with a dog turd shape.

  244. Andy

    dL
    December 27, 2016 at 21:22
    ‘Tom, I do not believe that this makes a difference at all. I have never encountered one person who talked about the party’s logo.’
    Well, people don’t talk about the apple logo when they buy apple products. It’s just that when they see the logo, they buy the product.”

    Can anyone produce any evidence of the Libertarian Party’s logo bringing in votes or members or to the cause of liberty in general? I have never seen a shred of evidence that anyone came to the LP or to libertarianism because of the party’s logo, and this is a question that I frequently ask people who identify themselves as being Libertarians or small “l” libertarians.

    We are an organization that faces lots of important issues, yet there are people who think that we should waste lots of time and money on the logo. Talk about screwed up priorities.

    I have thus far been unable to get anyone to take any action to address the numerous incidents of 1st amendment violations and candidate suppression that take place during ballot access drives, which have caused numerous Libertarians to fail to qualify for the ballot over the years, and have also cause the party to spend THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of extra dollars doing stressful last minute saves on ballot access drives.

    If the previous LNC and spent some time and money on this, instead of WASTING TIME AND MONEY TALKING ABOUT A FUCKING LOGO THAT NOBODY BUT THEM REALLY GIVES A MONKEY’S BUTT ABOUT, then the party could have qualified MORE candidates for the ballot for the 2016 election, and the party would have SAVED a LOT of money, and not had to deal with any of those last minute saves.

  245. Thomas L. Knapp

    —–
    I have never seen a shred of evidence that anyone came to the LP or to libertarianism because of the party’s logo, and this is a question that I frequently ask people who identify themselves as being Libertarians or small “l” libertarians.
    —–

    So you don’t think the logo is important.

    But you frequently ask people who identify themselves as being Libertarians or small “l” libertarians whether or not the logo was what brought them to it.

    Make up your mind.

  246. D. Frank Robinson

    OK. If “The Party of Principle” is not strong enough in content, how about “Challenging the cult of the omnipotent state”?

  247. D. Frank Robinson

    Any candidate can challenge the cult of the omnipotent state without further permission. It was given over 44 years ago. Thanks, TLK!

  248. Andy

    Tom, I have asked lots of people what brought them to the Libertarian Party, or to the libertarian philosophy. Nobody has ever responded that the Libertarian Party’s logo had anything to do with it.

  249. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    And if I asked thousands of people why they bought Nike tennis shoes, I doubt any would respond that it was the swoosh mark on the side of the shoes.

    But if Nike got rid of the swoosh and replaced it with a picture of a dog turd, they’d probably sell fewer shoes.

    “What the fuck is that? A banana peel?” is probably a better reaction than no reaction at all to a logo.

    But it’s not as good a reaction as “hmmm, the Statue of Liberty.” The Statue of Liberty is good branding. A cartoon banana peel is not.

  250. dL

    Well, people don’t talk about the apple logo when they buy apple products. It’s just that when they see the logo, they buy the product.”

    Can anyone produce any evidence of the Libertarian Party’s logo bringing in votes or members or to the cause of liberty in general?

    C’mon man. Obviously, people are NOT buying b/c they simply like the logo. They buy b/c of the product and reputation of the company. The logo identifies the product and the company. That’s BRANDING. Really good branding is when it’s easily and aesthetically identifiable. The gold standard is Nike. Right next to it is Apple. Of course, the product has to be good, too. Kind of important. Unfortunately, a good product and lousy branding can spell doom. Hence, the synergistic importance of branding.

    Marketing 101.

    What branding isn’t: the brand is the brand. Or hype, i.e., great marketing, shitty product. The infamous product marketing example of this: The Edsel. A good political example of this: respectability politics.

Leave a Reply

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