Source: Ballot Access News (from August 22, 2011)
On August 21, the Libertarian Party national committee voted to donate $50,000 to the campaign of Ed Coleman, who is running for re-election to the Indianapolis city council in a partisan election on November 8, 2011. Coleman was last elected as a Republican in 2007, but shortly afterwards he switched to the Libertarian Party. Although he was elected to one of the four at-large seats in 2007, in 2011 he is running to represent the 25th district, in the southeast corner of the city. Indianapolis has 25 city council districts plus its four at-large members.
The 25th district race will be between Coleman and a Republican. Democrats are not running anyone for that seat.
Click here to read Ballot Access News comments on this article
Related Articles:
July 11, 2011: LP Monday Message: Who’s the top elected Libertarian?
July 9, 2011: Who is Libertarian Councilor Ed Coleman?
May 15, 2011: Indianapolis City Councilmember will Run for Re-Election This Year as a Libertarian
I’m glad to see that this is actually a two way race, because this increases Ed Coleman’s chances for winning. It’s still going to take some intelligent planning and use of resources. I wish him good look. I may send him a donation myself.
ddie // Aug 26, 2011
“………… Green Party member, I know you guys already know this, but watch it with that Berry guy. Might be a plant. Just sayin. We are too smart as third party types to be sabotaged ……..”
[Lake: Hey Micky, so it is not the room temperature collective IQ, it is some thing other, such as in fighting, apathy, disdirection ?????????? ……….]
Eddie, who is the Berry guy? I missed your reference. A text search of this page did not come up with “berry” prior to your comment.
Each year there are a small handful of races which are the most important for the LP anywhere. It makes sense if there is some kind of mechanism which directs donors and volunteers from across the country to those races. I don’t particularly care whether that mechanism is the LNC or something else.
I’m not sure why it institutes interference in state affairs; is it interference in Marion County affairs if the state party directs resources there? Interference in District 24 affairs if the county party asks people from other districts to help out there?
In practice, I have not seen this work out to well. Many – probably most – state parties seem to be too small and disorganized to get much done. Without help from national, they would have trouble maintaining a database or a place on the ballot. Nor did they step up to the plate when UMP money dried up; most simply became less active.
During the period of time in my experience when national did the most for the state and local parties it seemed that they were also doing more for themselves at the same time.
While this exchange may make it sound like I agree with the LNC’s decision, that is not necessarily true. Several people have said that 50k is disproportionate for the LNC budget at present, and I think they are probably right.
@60 ??? Who is Berry guy ???
As a Green Party member, I know you guys already know this, but watch it with that Berry guy. Might be a plant. Just sayin. We are too smart as third party types to be sabotaged.
Vote Different – Vote Libertarian – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxO6i0khqhk&feature=player_embedded
The latest poll has the US Congress with 87% of the voters thinking they “suck” ! Meaning only 13% approve or have no comment. This is the highest and lowest numbers in history.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the LP could help fund LP US Congressional candidates to actually challenge the thieves in ’12 ?!
– 12 – 12 – 12
There is Hope for Your Family
There is a political party that believes the family budget is more important than the Federal budget. A political party that is working to restore the hopes and dreams of every hard-working American family. The Libertarian Party. – Visit http://www.lp.org/
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222
“Libertarians have quietly become America’s best organized and most significant third party. Unlike flash-in-the-pan parties organized around cults of personality like Ross Perot’s and Ralph Nader’s, Libertarians have organized at the grass roots for the long haul. They are fast approaching the point where they may force the major parties to reckon with Libertarian ideas.” – Bob Ewegen, The Denver Post,
– http://www.lp.org/
The Libertarian Party carries on today in the tradition of the Founders:
•The Libertarian Party didn’t wait for the Internet to become popular to stand up for principle: The LP has always supported freedom of speech and the press, and has had language specifically supporting freedom of online communication in its Platform since 1991.
•The Libertarian Party joined with thousands of concerned Internet users in “turning its web pages black” in protest of President Clinton’s signing the unconstitutional “Communications Decency Act” in 1995.
•The Libertarian Party continues to speak out today against the attempts by Democrats and Republicans to find loop-holes in the First Amendment, so they can turn the Internet into a government-controlled medium.
Politicians are trying to take away your right to read what you want, and to say what you want.
The Internet is making it possible for new voices to be heard — the voices of people who simply could not afford to publish their ideas or display their artistic talents to a wide audience using older technologies. Established interests of both the left and the right fear new voices, and are trying to control what appears on the Internet through new laws and regulations.
America’s Founders couldn’t foresee the Internet, but they knew that government control of information was not only a violation of personal liberty — it was a threat to their hopes for a nation based on the principles of self-government. So they gave us the First Amendment.
– Visit http://www.lp.org/
For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222
Paulie: “Ideally, the LP would be able to marshall resources from all over the country to target some select races that are especially significant beyond what the local parties can do for those.”
With respect, I don’t think that’s ideal. I don’t think the LNC should interfere in the affairs of state parties except in a rare instance of conflict under the bylaws. State parties should generally be autonomous. By that same token, I think they should handle ballot access themselves, fund candidates themselves, recruit members themselves, etc.
I’m *not* accusing the Indiana LP of failing to do those things, but of the handful of things I think the LNC should be doing, picking city council candidates to give money to isn’t one of them.
http://www.indy.com/posts/ex-trustee-to-fill-city-county-council-seat
Sandlin was first appointed in 2010. He has not been elected.
“Sandlin was the only one who applied to fill the vacancy, according to Council Clerk Melissa Thompson. Republican precinct committee members from his district met in a caucus Monday.
Sandlin served two terms as Perry Township trustee. He lost a bid for a third term when he was defeated in the 2006 Republican primary.”
http://indystudent.blogspot.com/2011/08/libertarian-national-party-donates.html
“As of April, 2011, Jack Sandlin (Coleman’s Republican opponent) only had a bit over $4k with over $1k in debt. Sandlin was appointed to the council recently after a vacancy opened up in that district.”
http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2011/03/libertarian-at-large-councilor-ed.html
“Sandlin won’t necessarily be able to simply rely on the Republican base in District 24. As the long-time elected Trustee of Perry Township, Sandlin lost his position due in large part due to a falling out he had with the township fire department. Those wounds are still fresh in Perry Township and could be exploited by Coleman who has strong public safety contacts. Sandlin’s chances will be further complicated by his support of the unpopular 50 year parking meter contract with ACS and his backing of Public Safety Director Frank Straub, who is almost universally opposed by police officers.”
http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-indianapolis/tuesday-s-tidbits
“Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy..also allegedly has promised support to Libertarian candidate Ed Coleman in his City-Council race against Jack Sandlin.”
http://indystudent.blogspot.com/2011/04/county-dems-should-send-coleman-fruit.html
”
And to the detractors that say that there aren’t nearly enough Libertarians to vote for Coleman in that district, I counter that if there’s any group that could screw this up, it’s the bunch that is currently in charge of the county GOP. If the powers-that-be don’t think a candidate is worth supporting, that candidate, no matter how good or qualified, could fall. Carlos May and Michael Jezierski were both slated by the county GOP in their respective 2010 and 2007 primaries, but lost to unslated candidates. In 2007, most of the At-Large GOP candidates were told to fend for themselves, with only Kent Smith getting any significant backing from the party.”
Comment by Anonymous on that article:
“…The MCRCC will not spend a penny for any of their candidates.Its all going to Ballard….”
Indy Student said…
“…I agree that in this county, hitting the streets is necessary. And it’s also apparent to me that the group in charge of the county GOP are unwilling to play the ground game, for whatever reason. I wouldn’t be surprised if the MCRCC spent a ton of money trashing primary challengers, leaving little for council candidates in the general. …”
According to http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?id=1451218 Democrats have candidates in all other 24 districts and 4 at large seats, and Libertarians have candidates in 20 of the 29 races.
Sandlin is an incumbent
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Councillors/Biography/Pages/district_24.aspx
That kind of donor definitely exists. They tend to give money to Cato more than the LP at present. Some of them are never going to support the LP, but there are some who are just waiting to see some success before supporting future efforts.
Re: Floodgates theory…count me skeptical. Say a L-leaning R pol wants to switch to the LP. Hey, he or she says, I’m really an L, but I want to get elected. You guys wanna give me $50K to ease the transition?
This feels like a Potemkin exercise.
I definitely like keeping the highest ranking L in office. I’m OK with supporting him at the LNC level. But this feels disproportionate still.
JT@51,
A number of theories remain in fairly constant circulation in the LP. Some of them don’t get tested very well, some of them get tested time and time again — and the results ignored.
So, I understand your skepticism of the theory that Coleman doing well with LNC money will assist the LNC in raising more money for more candidates.
But, that particular theory is not facially unsound.
There are various kinds of LP donors, and one apparently large class of such donors is the “practical politics/winning elections” check-writer.
If that kind of donor sees the LNC spending money in ways that “gets things done/wins elections” he’ll write the LNC more, and bigger, checks, for them to do more of that same thing.
That’s the theory, anyway. I don’t have a comprehensive data set of past tests of the theory, but anecdotally my impression is that it’s a workable theory.
Ideally, the LP would be able to marshall resources from all over the country to target some select races that are especially significant beyond what the local parties can do for those. I would personally think that would make more sense at a level where we can do say 5-10 per cycle. I don’t see the ability of the LNC to do that at anything like 50k per candidate unless their income significantly improves. As I understand, what they are hoping for is that this will cause the flood gates to open, to have a lot of sitting office holders defect and that that will lead to the LNC having a lot more supporters and/or larger donations. However, if I was one of these elected people thinking about making the switch I would think long and hard and ask questions as to whether this is a one shot deal or whether the LP could do the same for me while at the same time doing the same for several other people.
From what I have heard Indiana is going all out for him, but I don’t have numbers.
The sense that we can win? I guess we’ll see.
I think I covered that under argument against…….
There’s a guy on the NYC council but he is a fusion candidate of several parties including lp and gop.
Doug: “JT (32) Ed Coleman has his act together.”
Good.
Doug: “I believe right (sic) he might be looked at as our highest elected official.”
I’m sure he is.
Doug: “I did not vote for the 50,000 for Ed not because he did not deserve it, he does.”
Why does he “deserve” $50k from the LNC?
Doug: “I voted against it because of budget limitations.”
Good reason.
Doug: “I wish we had more money to give out to great candidates like Ed Coleman…”
I wish *state and local* parties had more money to give out to such candidates–not the *national* party.
Doug: “…and when he wins I believe it will be easier in the future to raise money for other candidates.
Why do you believe that?
Paulie: “The argument for donating the 50k to Coleman is that we need to send a signal to other elected Republicans that if they switch over the LP will offer material support for them to be (re)elected as Libertarians.”
If that’s an argument that LNC members used to justify the contribution, I think it’s a bad one.
First, because of what you say: I don’t think the LNC is in a financial position to fund many more such candidates (not with that kind of money, anyway). Second, because I don’t think the national committee should be spending its relatively meager income on funding local candidates.
Knapp: “Another is that if the LP shows it can elect and re-elect partisan Libertarians versus major-party opponents, and marshal considerable resources for doing so, Republicans and Democrats will become “more libertarian” in an effort to not be the candidates in the LP’s crosshairs.”
This is one guy for a city council seat, albeit in a major city. Assuming he wins the election, I don’t believe that will have a significant ripple effect–and certainly not one beyond that single council that justifies a $50k contribution from the LNC.
I want to repeat that I’m not outraged by this decision. I just don’t agree with it at all.
The LNC should get its priorities straightened. Bad joke, this.
The LNC should get its priorities straightened.
I wish Ed Coleman and the Libertarian Party members and supporters in Indiana the very best success in the election. I hope he wins.
Paulie @ 44,
“The argument for donating the 50k to Coleman is that we need to send a signal to other elected Republicans that if they switch over the LP will offer material support for them to be (re)elected as Libertarians. ”
That’s one argument.
Another is that if the LP shows it can elect and re-elect partisan Libertarians versus major-party opponents, and marshal considerable resources for doing so, Republicans and Democrats will become “more libertarian” in an effort to not be the candidates in the LP’s crosshairs.
I don’t have an opinion on whether the $50k expenditure was or was not a good idea, but it was certainly not a meritless one.
@BAN comments:
Mark Rutherford Says:
August 25th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Ed Coleman is running in District 24.
Richard Winger Says:
August 25th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
#5, thank you. I just now fixed the post.
Humongous Fungus Says:
August 25th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
You still say 25th in your last sentence
Richard Winger Says:
August 25th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
#7, thank you. I should pay you guys.
How you spend your time is obviously up to you.
I think second guessing is the nature of internet fora. Check out any open sports discussion forum online, for example. People who agree with decisions made by those with the power to make them and those on the fence are generally less motivated to comment than those who disagree.
Much for the same reason that customer service departments are more likely to get complaints than complements when they rely on people deciding for themselves whether to lodge a comment of any sort, as opposed to doing a random survey of customers.
Another example is that when we petition, we sometimes get people who thank us for doing what we are doing, but the store or other location is much more likely to ever hear from those who complain about us being there, so they tend to get a distorted picture of what their customers think. I doubt the people who tell us they are glad we are there are telling it to the store’s customer service department. Certainly not in anything like the proportion as those who complain.
The argument for donating the 50k to Coleman is that we need to send a signal to other elected Republicans that if they switch over the LP will offer material support for them to be (re)elected as Libertarians. I wonder if the party will be in a position to live up to such an expectation if several Republicans switch over and then seek election as Libertarians?
The argument against it was that there are better uses for the same scarce resources.
I don’t see why some people on either side have chosen to demonize those who disagree with them on this tactical decision.
Without taking a position for or against it, I damn sure hope this $50k sees Coleman put up a good showing. It is going to seem like a really stupid idea if he gets crushed.
Rachel took down Gold America Group. I seem to be linking here to Liberty For America, and have no way to edit.
Ballot Access News is usually pretty reliable, but no one is perfect. Richard did note the error and is fixing it.
GP @ several of your comments above you name link to Gold America Group, which appears to no longer be operational.
@37
I am happy to hear this. I pulled the district number for Coleman from this very diary article, way at the top.
I should have known better than to trust the source in question.
JT (32) Ed Coleman has his act together. I belive right he might be looked at as our highest elected offical. I did not vote for the 50,000 for Ed not because he did not deserve it , he does. I voted against it because of budget limitations. I wish we had more money to give out to great candidates like Ed Coleman and when he wins I believe it will be easier in the future to raise money for other candidates.
Thank you Mark for clearing that up.
By the way, I bet Kevin Vail, the Libertarian candidate in District 25 would be surprised to learn that there is an allegation that Ed Coleman is running as the Libertarian candidate in his district.
Ed Coleman is running against Republican Jack Sandlin in District 24. There is no Democrat running in District 24. So it is still a two-way race.
I think that he’s going to have to do a lot of voter registration (as in getting libertarian minded people in the district who are not registered to vote to register) along with a get out the vote effort (to get libertarian minded people to actually go to the polls and vote).
“Aaron Freeman (R, inc.)
Mario Garza (D, Lt., Fire Department)
Ed Coleman (L)”
When I first heard about this race, I thought that it was going to be a two way race between Coleman and a Republican. Now that I’ve found out that there’s a Democrat in the race in addition to the Republican candidate, I think that it decreases Ed Coleman’s chance of winning. I wish him good look and I may even send him a donation myself, but it is going to take some very intelligent planning and a lot of money for Ed Coleman to pull this one off.
32 JT, we agree again. I can’t say “never” do this sort of thing, but it appears on its face disproportionate and not especially strategic.
Here’s something I disagree with the LNC about. I’m not up in arms about it, but I don’t think the LNC should be giving any money to any city council candidate–nevermind $50k. It should be up to the Indianapolis LP and the Indiana LP to help fund local candidates. And it’s not like the LPUS is so flush with cash that $50k is an insignificant sum. I don’t know why the LNC would do this, other than to tout the fact that there’s a Libertarian city councilman in a major city.
For goodness sakes you guys. Ed Coleman is now running in a smaller district with better demographics for a more likely win. Instead of at-large.
I think I need to quit reading IPR.
I have never in my life seen so much second-guessing.
Let us hope that Mr. Coleman has been out knocking on doors ever night for weeks now.
24 tb: …you have nothing left but a group of lemmings waving flags and constitutions. The few who truly seek real peace, prosperity and freedom end up whistling in the wilderness as they are ostracized by the larger group as obstacles to mainstream support.
me: Can’t say I’ve participated in “ostracizing” Ls who plumb the fringes, but what makes you think that moderates such as myself don’t “seek” real freedom. I’m as sure that I can be that I do. Is there something inherently “wrong” with doing so in a more (subjectively) appropriate manner? I actually would really like to be corrected by you in this regard!
For those of you who missed it the first time, the candidates in the 25th District race are
Aaron Freeman (R, inc.)
Mario Garza (D, Lt., Fire Department)
Ed Coleman (L)
And the D announced on June 10 and has been running, it appears, for several months now.
Republican Aaron Freeman is a zero-term incumbent who took office in 2010. I do not know what happened to Lincoln Plowman, who was in 2007 elected to a four-year-term.
A few minutes web search reveals that claims that there is no Democrat in the race are not supported by news sources:
http://www.indy.com/posts/161336 :
“Marion County Democrat Chairman Ed Treacy today announced four candidates who will enter City-County Council district races in the Nov. 8 general election.
No Democrats had filed to run in those four seats before the May 3 primary.
Democrat Jared Evans will face Robert Lutz in District 13, Democrat Maxine King will face Marilyn Pfisterer in District 14, Democrat Todd Woodmansee will face Benjamin Hunter in District 21, and Mario Garza will face Aaron Freeman in District 25.”
The Marion County Democratic web site has a bio.
Three way race. Incumbent. Hmmmmmm.
FWIW, Ed Coleman is not running for re-election to his current At-Large position. He’s running for the District 25 city council position. Between 3,000 and 7,000 voters typically vote in an Indianapolis city council district election. This means that the LNC is spending between $7 and $16 PER VOTER! This strikes me as either really stupid or very desperate.
@20 I am relying on @12, but perhaps @12 means something else. As I said, I did *not* hear this in the LNC meeting broadcast.
With respect to Chuckie, the Federal law is that you may not use Federal PAC spending in a local election in a way that does not comply with state or local law, regulation, etc. This, because there is no violation of state law, there is no violation of Federal law. The MA situation is the reverse; the LNC cannot legally spend a dime in Massachusetts in a non-Federal election.
The only real question is how much damage they’ll do to the word “libertarian” before they crawl out of the crater they’ve left where the LP used to be and start looking for their next victims.
I’m not sure how much more damage can be done to the “L” word thanks to Libertarians like Neal Boortz and Wayne Root, and libertarians like Glenn Beck and the Koch boys. Not to mention legions of LP candidates that run as “true conservatives.”
Add the libertarians that think supporting a reduction in the rate of budget increases makes them minarchists and you have nothing left but a group of lemmings waving flags and constitutions. The few who truly seek real peace, prosperity and freedom end up whistling in the wilderness as they are ostracized by the larger group as obstacles to mainstream support.
Here is his web site http://www.imwithed.com/
JJM @16:
“I wonder if your goal isn’t to stop the LP, or neuter it.”
Whether it was their goal or not, it’s long since accomplished.
The only real question is how much damage they’ll do to the word “libertarian” before they crawl out of the crater they’ve left where the LP used to be and start looking for their next victims.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.” -H. L. Mencken
GP @19
Can we get a confirmation someplace that the republican is an incumbent rather than this being an open seat contest?
If so, this may not be a very prudent choice. If it is an open seat I could see value to gaining incumbency advantage in your own district through a switch as opposed to being more vulnerable and at-large.
The most important bit I see here, which I missed in listening to the LNC discussion, is that I am reading above that he is not running in his old ‘district’ (at-large), he is running in a local district against an incumbent. Is that correct?
*That* is challenging. We tried this in the late 90s.
KK@17
Agreed, in part… but like what MW was hinting at… it is important to make sure these are hands up not hand outs… it is important to make sure that the local people are dedicated to growing. It might make much sense in the future to make these matching grants or contingent on some form of performance.
If there are issues with this person’s voting record/past those might be raised. So far all I have seen is hatred because he was a former republican. While it is true that much of the scum of our party came from there, it is also true that many of our good people did too.
Prejudice is unbecoming. Now if, say when he was an R he was voting in favor of the DOMA and advocated the death penalty for drug dealers, those would be reasons to have concern that we are investing in the wrong people.
Everyone pretty much knows I am no fan of the current LNC, but if you are going to levy criticism, do it with specifics, not prejudice.
What in particular is wrong with this guy that the LNC should have known about and rejected this action?
There you go again John. I wasn’t giving any approval. Frankly, I don’t see what the differences are. I want to local AND state LP affiliates to grow stronger so they can better help candidates.
@15 I am one of the brightest stars of the libertarian message, with or without your approval.
Soon you guys will have made being a member of the LP meaningless unless you stop what you are doing, in some instances it’s so blatantly unlibertarian, I wonder if your goal isn’t to stop the LP, or neuter it.
@ 13
And you could have been a Star in the LP. Really.
How do you see that happening…especially if others, such as you, drop out of being active in it?
That’s the last check the LP gets from me, until the Root faction is removed.
Mr. Wagner may you be moved to donate to help compensate for the many who will stop due to DISGUST!
I quit the Party almost 20 year ago due to “CRAP” like this, I come back and try to generate some interest on the net and this happens. I mean if it was $5,000 I could swallow hard and go on, but heck people this is $50,000. To a council race no less for a LONG time R- short time L. Hell he may win or lose and still skip back to the Rs. What’s his voting record ?! What’s the NatCom’s reasoning in this ? I mean if we were loaded down with cash doners and an exploding membership I still couldn’t agree with $50,000 to an Indianapolis Council race. How many people does this man represent anyway ?
Things like this could make me begin to believe in conpiracies and such ! Like the LP is infiltrated by persons whos goal is to always keep the Party as a NON-factor in major American politics! You know like so the people in charge STAY IN CHARGE ! Oh no that just cant be so…
Forty years of INEPTNESS, anyone ever wonder why ?
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Gary Johnson 2012: Cup of Liberty – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYeFDWeBr9A
Ron Paul on America Live with Megyn Kelly- http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/08/22/ron-paul-on-america-live-with-megyn-kelly/
Ron Paul 2012: Our moment is now!- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5_E4EQJhEY&annotation_id=annotation_46987&feature=iv
Obama virtually tied in re-election match-ups with Paul and Bachmann in new poll- http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-virtually-tied-election-match-ups-romney-perry-151926037.html;_ylt=Ah53M5PAP4vdCNIgL.p2dvetSfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTQ5azlmZGI1BGNjb2RlA3dlaWdodGVkY3QEcGtnAzU5NjgyYWY5LTc5NzgtMzhhZC1hMDI1LThhNWEwYmZmOWUyMARwb3MDNARzZWMDTWVkaWFCTGlzdE1peGVkTW9zdFBvcHVsYXJDQQR2ZXIDMDFhYjllZTAtY2RjOS0xMWUwLWJiZmQtMmRiOGFmOTk5ZTE0;_ylg=X3oDMTNkb3E5ZzMwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZTE4NjRhYmEtZjUxNy0zMjFlLTliNmEtZGM0MDYwNjE0NjU3BHBzdGNhdAN1c3xjcmltZXMgYW5kIHRyaWFscwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3
Not knowing anything about the candidate, person, etc., and provided that all vetted out well, this would be an example of the LNC fulfilling a very useful role and were I a donor of the national party I would be perfectly fine with these types of donations going to candidates, and were there more activity of this type I may even be moved to become a donor.
I suspect a great number of people who donate money to the national party do so wanting the lion’s share of their money to go towards ballot access (preferably of the permanent variety) and candidate support.
MW@10 asks a question that goes towards encouraging the right behavior while providing support — such as giving such support in the form of matching grants, etc, so while you are providing the funds you are also encouraging organizations to develop their own fundraising skills and self-reliance at the same time you are accomplishing the mission.
I don’t know the particulars in this case though, whether the money is or is not a good investment, etc…, but we are a political party and winning races seems to be a key part of the core mission. I am quite certain money has been spent on worse ideas, and just hope this was done after much consideration and earnest debate given the size.
Btw what did the Indiana State party contribute?
However, the Head Line would be more appropriate as ‘Donated’ instead of ‘Appropriated’
I’m thinking “Misappropriated” might be better than “Donated.”
Using Wayne Root’s infallible betting picks, the LNC could have parlayed that 50 Grand into millions in Vegas. That would pay for several council slots and a half-dozen dog catchers.
The Federal Election Commission only has authority over presidential and congressional campaign spending, not spending for city elections. Indiana election law governs this race, and the Indiana Election Commission says the donation is perfectly legal.
Chuck… are you Dr. Phillies?
I have done lots of research and have found that this action of the LNC is a violation of many FEC rules. This is totally illegal. Plus in the last election they did not give any candidate any money. This is very, very fishy. I’m going to look into it more. You might see your favorite LNC members in handcuff in a week or so for this heinous crime.
You libertariansexuals might hate God’s election laws but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow them! You’ll be hearing from the FEC!
Linguistic question: since he’s running for a different City Council seat, is it proper to say he’s seeking “re-election”?
Concerned,
No one has deleted your comments yet, as far as I know, although perhaps they should get their own special thread.
As a non LP with libertarian stripes I have tons of issues, local to national, with LP.
However, the Head Line would be more appropriate as ‘Donated’ instead of ‘Appropriated’
………… I’m just sayin
If only ………….
What a waste using that money promoting this Wayne Root loving nutjob when it could be used to spread the message of the Maitreya Buddha, Sri Mike Gravel! Coleman’s going to be sleeping with the fish in hell while Gravel sits on the thrown of the world ruling over all mankind in the name of Jesus Christ!
I demand the FEC investigates this misuse of funds, clearly the LNC should be spending all it’s money on the true libertarian- Mike Gravel. This has to be fraud, where would these people even get that much money? They must have stolen it, as their libertarian mental disorder demands they must!
Also, IPR stop deleting my comments! I only speak the truth!