GP Adds Summary: There is a great deal here on different topics. No mail drops since August 22, including renewal notices. Bills were not been supplied to the Operations Manager, the person who pays them, and may well not have been paid. Some members were, to his knowledge, not given access to the LNC private email list.
Robert Kraus writes:
Inside LP Baseball #3: Here’s some charts that tell a story. I guess you can spin it & say gee, things aren’t so bad – look back at 2009 not too mention 2005-6. We won’t account for inflation because that just doesn’t match our “rhetoric.”
I was around for those periods of course & there are reasons for the decrease in revenue – most of which goes to the decrease in membership at those times. The LNC basically got rid of membership in 2005/2006. There was also a lot of board related issues back in 2009 (plus we were without an ED – I was “acting” so yes, I take some of the blame, doing 2 full time jobs is hard).
When the LP has high membership – it can pretty much run on auto pilot. But membership started to go down (with the exception of the convention) just after the BSM deadline of 10/31/21. Very few of the new folks who joined have renewed. Very few of the ones who joined just before or at the convention have renewed. Many of them because no one has asked them to renew. Not one piece of mail has dropped since Aug 22. The most profitable of all mailings was the renewal letter. Very high ROI. $6 in revenue for every $1 of cost.
Even without direct mail the LNC should be bringing in about $135K a month ave for May-Aug. Last month was only $77.5K (revenue which doesn’t include convention fundraising) vs a very low goal of $100K.
I literally provided instructions on how to reach these lapsed members without direct mail in March, then to anyone that would listen in early May, then to the entire LNC later in May. There’s systems in place preventing emails or texts getting to the membership. I explained how to remove those blocks. Then those that did not respond to emails or texts, would then get one renewal mailer. The projected cost was about $6.5K with a return of $25-30K.
The simple sad truth is apparently very few on the LNC really care if revenue comes in the door or membership increases. I can’t tell you why since I was not on the “private” list. You can ask your LNC Rep (but, keep in mind even they may not be on the “private” list – I know of a couple who are not – after all dissenters are not welcomed).
But that’s OK – so we are all told because costs are so low. The LNC was informed that I was prevented from having access to my emails effective May 6. About 80% of our bills come in via email. I was only provided info on one bill for May & zero for June despite asking multiple times to either get access back or be provided a list of bills owed.
Only because I reached out to a few key vendors & contractors – not too mention by law various cancellation notices were received in the mail – were any bills paid over the 6 weeks before I departed. Some of these I paid against orders simply because I felt it was my fiduciary duty to pay them.
[Editor: Robert Kraus has confirmed the source of the orders. Who gave certain orders? Kraus says: my boss & her boss.]
Yes, your LNC Reps were made aware of this via the Private list. No, many just did not care.
I guess if the bill is not “received” then it doesn’t exist. That’s one way to “keep costs low” although not effective in the long run as things stop working.
I am sure there will be some questions when/if the May Membership Report (delivered on 6/4) or the EOM Financials come out (delivered 6/12). I am also sure there will be a great plan & creative explanations to go with them!
Hopefully, there will be some folks running for LNC in 24 that do care more than the ones in a minority now. The LP may not be dead but it is unfortunately critically ill – and sadly it will take literally 2-3 years of rehab to recover from this point.
“The Mises Caucus wants to run a comedian for President…”
Worked for libertarians in Ukraine.
I would nominate Jimmy Durante. He was a pre-1964 libertarian, had several hit songs USLP could use, can be run on one issue of getting rid of ballot access laws and a vote for him is national referendum on subject.
The Constitution does not say the candidate or public officials must be alive. The tradition in my family is that was intentional–1776 version of NOTA.
Though rumor is Durante is still voting in Chicago. And NY.
“In England, elections during World War II were cancelled for the duration.” – George Phillies
That is true, however, there was a national unity coalition government which included Clement Attlee as Deputy PM even though he was the opposition leader. The government even included Liberals despite the fact they were a tiny minority in the House of Commons.
Zelensky and Churchill? However, Churchill faced the same issues that Zelensky did, and took the same responses. In England, elections during World War II were cancelled for the duration. Indeed, the major World War II countries that had elections were the United States and (in 1942) Japan. World War 2 England, like modern Ukraine, banned some political parties and detained their supporters, notably Oswald Mosely and the British Union of Fascists.
“Both Russia and Ukraine are led by tyrants- look at Zelensky cancelling elections and seizing property to those who disagree. Him and Putin really aren’t very different.” – Rick
I definitely agree with that statement. The mainstream media in their really distorted view of reality keep comparing Zelenskyy to Winston Churchill. Certainly not a good comparison in my view.
I was active in The Libertarian Party the entire time Nick Sarwack was Chair, and I did not see any welcome extended to libertarian socialists. Perhaps he did, and maybe someone can send me evidence on the matter.
I watched part of the “antiwar” rally that the Libertarian Party cosponsored with The Peoples Party. There were Russian flags there, and the only speaker who commented on them welcomed them at the rally.
Non-intervention is a principle, but as Daniel Ellsberg noted, there is more than one principle in the world. Libertarians oppose aggression, and Russia is clearly aggressing in Ukraine. And there is clearly a difference in internal political organization in the two countries. People are in prison in Russia for opposing the war, or for attempting to escape conscription. There is censorship in Russia, and aggressive regulation of such private economy as exists in Russia.
Ukraine or any other victim of aggression has the right to seek aid. The only principled reason for opposing US aid to Ukraine is the aggression against American taxpayers involved. Since the Peoples Party proposes massive tax increases on Americans, libertarians who work with the Peoples Party sort of give up their principled opposition to taxation. It makes it look like the demo was more a tendentious support for Russia than a principled struggle against aggression.
Among the speakers at the rally was Scott Horton, editorial director @ antiwar.com and head of The Libertarian Institute (sic). At both sites there have been posts that explicitly favor the Russian side in the aggression, and explicitly praise Vlad the impaler Putin.
Just prior to the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian state Army, The Libertarian Institute published an opinion piece, reposted on antiwar.com, titled “Russian Moves in Donbas may end US Hegemony.” Since then the Libertarian Institute has published a piece, reposted on Antiwar.com praising Vladimir Putin for responding to the west crossing “red lines” set out by Putin. One evidence of Putin’s principled response to the west crossing a “red line” is his invasion of Ukraine.
Principled libertarians opposed US intervention in Vietnam and Iraq, and US/NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. But the aggressor in the current conflict is clearly Russia, and libertarians should oppose aggression, even if they differ on what they will accept as a response.
Rick,
I have heard quite a bit more than you would guess. I spent 15 years in LP leadership at various levels and am quite aware (and have commented on) the various faction wars. I trust the current national secretary about as far as I could throw a 20 ton rock.
I think you are confusing “righting the ship” with what it really is: Mises turned it just enough to scrape the entire side of the hull, and every single compartment of the titanic is taking on water.
But only time will tell. The LP will either survive, or it won’t. The faction in charge right now will either get tired of dealing with holding the Tiger by the tail and give up, get thrown out, or succeed. After all, the Washington Nationals could still technically win the NL East this year by 30 games.
But like the case of the nationals, I am rooting for another team now. Actually, that is a bad analogy, because I did root for the LP for many years and only a nut would root for Washington.
Mises PAC flacks yelling about “communists” in the LP is pretty rich, considering that that organization boos the ideas of Mises when they’re publicly discussed, while actively promoting the ideas of Frankfurt-trained cultural (and actual publicly self-proclaimed) Marxist Han-Hermann Hoppe.
Sarwark openly welcomed the “libertarian” socialists. Yes, 5% is a concern, because what they preach are nowhere near libertarian values and ideas.
Mises did not sponsor a pro-Russia rally. It was an anti-war rally, which is a libertarian principle, especially when we were not attacked. Both Russia and Ukraine are led by tyrants- look at Zelensky cancelling elections and seizing property to those who disagree. Him and Putin really aren’t very different.
The fact that a few self-described “libertarian socialists” became involved in The Libertarian Party is not proof, or even evidence, that the party welcomed them.
On the other hand, the Mises Caucus dominated LNC co-sponsored a pro-Russia rally with the avowedly socialist People’s Party is evidence that the Caucus lacks any verifiable principle. LNC Chair Angela McArdle has stated that the LP under her leadership will ally with Communists to opposed the war machine.
I never heard Nick Sarwack advocate allying with Communists, but the MAGA types and other supporters of the Mises Caucus constantly call other libertarians “communists” in the comment sections here and at Ballot Access News.
Candidates the socialist caucus has endorsed at recent Libertarian conventions (note that I don’t know that they endorsed all of these people at every convention or for every race. But I seem to recall them being endorsed by the socialist caucus at least once. And I’m not sure about Vermin Supreme or AOC. I also don’t know that this list is complete.):
2022 national convention:
Jeff Wood, 1 vote, 0.10%, for Vice Chair
2020 national convention:
Vermin Supreme, 171, 16.81% for President
Mike Shipley, 38 votes, 3.92% for Chair.
Jeff Wood, 37 votes, 2.54%, for Vice Chair
James Weeks, 1 vote, 0.07% for Vice Chair
Vermin Supreme, 2 votes, 0.14% for Vice Chair
James Weeks, 29 votes, 0.71%, for LNC at large.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 1 vote, 0.02% for LNC at large.
Jeff Wood, 1 vote, 0.10%, for Secretary
Vermin Supreme, 1 vote, 0.10% for Secretary
Vermin Supreme, 291 votes, 6.63% for Judicial Committee
2018 national convention:
Matthew Kuehnel, 13 votes (1.63%) for Chair.
James Weeks, 44 votes, 6.01%, for Vice Chair.
Jeff Wood, 38 votes, 5.78%, for Secretary.
Mike Shipley, 90 votes, 2.19% for LNC at large
James Weeks, 80 votes, 1.95% for LNC at large
2016 national convention:
Vermin Supreme, 1 vote, 0.11%, for President
James Weeks, 2 votes, 0.28% for Chair.
Vermin Supreme, 1 vote, 0.14%, for Chair
Jeff Wood, 108 votes, 15.06% for Secretary
Vermin Supreme was getting a lot of votes from people who weren’t socialists. They just wanted to mock the Presidential election. And Jeff Wood’s 2016 Secretary vote was getting a lot of “not Alicia Mattson” votes.
Every other vote had a mid to low single digit percentage. I’m not sure how that indicates the party was “shifting way too far left and openly welcoming socialists and communists”.
It certainly doesn’t justify the rightward shift in reaction to it. “A socialist got almost 4% of the vote for Chair in 2020, so let’s remove the platform language condemning bigotry.” Yeah, good job.
Thanks for the reminder, Andy.
George, it was at the 2018 LP National Convention that a communist ran for National Chairman. He got on stage wearing a Karl Marx t-shirt and proclaimed rent as being theft among other Marxist stances. I think his name was Matt Kuehnel. He was backed by the Libertarian Socislist Caucus. Fortunately he lost, but I found the fact that he made it as far as he did to be disturbing.
There was a fellow at the iirc 2016 convention who fit the description. He had little support and was not elected.
I must have missed that,Rick. What is the name of the “communist” person who ran for chair? It is hard to believe that someone advocating the abolition of private property could ever be seriously entertained by delegates to an LP convention.
The party has always been fractured in ways, but it’s been at its worst the past few years before Mises. The party was shifting way too far left and openly welcoming socialists and communists, which are not even close to libertarian values. You had a communist run for chair in 2018. You also had a weak or non existent response to COVID and mandates
Mises came in and righted the ship, but they have realized it was much worse than they thought. I know and trust Angela to continue the process of rebuilding.
“Angela and the LNC and new staffers are doing a fantastic job rebuilding a fractured party.”
It is only fractured because of the Mises Caucus, which is mostly composed of people who have not been active in The Libertarian Party prior to the Caucus deciding the LP was powerful enough that it was worth taking over.
And clearly Angela McArdle and the staff are not rebuilding the party – it is weaker than it was when they took over, and their plans would make it weaker.
The Mises Caucus wants to run a comedian for President, but they have already proved that some jokes just are not funny.
I’m taking this with a grain of salt as it is only one side of the story. I agree with Rick we need both sides of the story, otherwise it is just his opinion.
Hi Rick. Caryn Ann Harlos is a regular reader here, and has commented fairly recently. She, and anyone else, is welcome to comment here if they want and I’m sure that George and Jordan would welcome an article from Caryn Ann, Angela, or anyone else if they wish to submit one. Part of the difficulty for the “both sides” argument is that most of what Robert is sharing isn’t opinion; it’s his own experience. He’s not really offering many interpretations. There’s not really another side to that, although there may be explanations. FWIW what he’s saying here tracks more or less with what others have said on Facebook and at other sites.
Stewart, I completely disagree. You have only heard one side of the story.
Angela and the LNC and new staffers are doing a fantastic job rebuilding a fractured party.
Have you contacted Angela McArdle for her side of the story?
How much of the revenue problems could reasonably be attributed to the CiviCRM change?
As I had guessed. Very sad. But the convention brought it upon themselves by putting these idiots and fools in charge.
Pray tell, who gave you orders not to pay bills, and why?