Posted by Dr. Marc Allan Feldman on his Presidential campaign site, votesnotforsale. Dr. Feldman is a member of the Libertarian National Committee from Ohio, past candidate for public office in that state and a current candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination for 2016.
Why no fundraisers? Why no PAC or corporate support? Why a five dollar cap on individual contributions?
Here are my top ten reasons:
10. I can be a candidate and keep my job. I am a busy physician, an anesthesiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. Fundraising takes up the majority of the time of many candidates. If I don’t do that, I can still work full time.
9. It will be good for the LP. I am keeping the cost of my campaign very low. I will leave no debt for the LP to pay. A large number of unpaid volunteers could give a big boost to membership.
9. It empowers people. I believe the Libertarian Party should be less about limited government, and more about unlimited individuals. Anyone with $5 to donate can be my largest donor. Anyone I speak with knows I am not speaking with them because I want money.
8. I can employ technology. The cost of campaign database management has dropped precipitously. Obamas technological platform probably cost a million dollars. The Voter Relationship Management system I use is far more robust and cost $20 per month. I tried to find an experienced Certified NationBuilder Expert that I could hire. There were some available, but they had strong ties to either Democrats or Republicans. I wanted an Expert who agreed with me on the importance of getting money out of politics. I could not find one. So I completed NationBulder training and became a Certified NationBuilder Expert.
7. I can leverage grassroots. Studies have shown that television, radio, and other mass media is not nearly as successful as personal phone calls, knocking on doors, and shaking hands. I am putting together a very large grassroots network, coordinated by the VRM system
6. It could turn the major party billions from a political asset to a liability. Many voters are horrified at the huge expense of the campaign. They know a lot of that money comes from special interests that are going to make a good profit from government spending after the election. A very low cost campaign could look very, very good in comparison
.
5. The LP is a disruptive innovation. While gathering experience in the entrepreneurial world, I read about disruptive innovation. Clayton M. Christensen wrote eloquently about innovation that does not advance a market, but fundamentally changes it. Key factors include keeping costs very low, and expecting much lower revenue. Target marketing efforts to low end users ignored by the incumbents. Market to current non-users who have no prior investment in old technology. This advice politically would mean to market at low cost to non-voters. Certainly no “lesser of two evils” problem there.
4. I can represent the people instead of special interests. No need to try to recruit special interests for intensive fundraising. There is nothing wrong with going to the traditional liberty-oriented groups like second amendment, marriage equality, and marijuana legalization. But a very low cost campaign allows me to focus on much broader messages of cutting spending, balancing the budget, and getting the corrupting influence of big money out of political campaigns.
3. It demonstrates integrity. Anyone can say they are for smaller government and more freedom. You can say that you are not after more and more money. But it is hard to be credible when you are having fundraisers all the time. Most of the time when I tell people that I have a $5 dollar cap, the response is “Wow, I like it!”
2. I shows I am a serious candidate. Raising money from special interests does not make a person better at governing. Just the opposite. There are many people who feel, like me, that the number one threat to our national security is our spending and our debt. How can you be a serious candidate when you have no plan to address our number one threat? I can be credible when I say I will balance the budget on day one. People know I will do it when they see how I run my own campaign. I will have no favors to repay. No big money bosses that I have to coddle.
1. It is a winnable strategy. I was having a good discussion with a senior leader in the Republican Liberty Caucus. He was explaining to me why a Libertarian party candidate could not possibly win. He said whatever liberty issue gains traction with the public, before the Libertarian party can benefit, the Republican party will jump in, and get out in front with the issue in a bigger, louder, more effective way. Gun rights, marriage equality, marijuana, civil forfeiture, whatever. If it starts to succeed, they will pre-empt us. I asked him, “What if my initiative to get money out of politics gains traction? What if I start to get 3%, 5%, or 10% and gain momentum? Do you think the Republican Party could possibly get in front of that?” He thought for a moment, furrowed his brow, and quietly said “no, I don’t think so.”
I’ll try to get to it later.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Andy and Matt about donations.
“Matt Cholko
February 18, 2015 at 3:40 am
Unfortunately, I can’t support a candidate that won’t take contributions larger than $5, unless he’s starting with a couple million of his own money.”
I agree, but I’ll go further by saying that the person would ideally need more than $2 million to spend out of their own pocket.
Like it or not, money is the lifeblood of politics. If you want to get anywhere, you must have money.
This plan of getting people to donate $5 (at most) is just not realistic at all. My prediction is that few people will be inspired enough to even donate $5, and even fewer people will ever hear about this campaign.
If I were running, my plan would be to raise as much money as possible, without selling out principles of course.
Thanks for posting, Jill. The petition went up yesterday and has about 60 signatures so far. Once it gets 150 it will be published on the White House website. Maybe it is worth an IPR article with a link to Bill Mahers monologue at:
youtube.com/watch?v=IlRgQ0YK24I
I got this in my email tonight:
I just started a petition on the White House petitions site, We the People. Will you sign it? https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-non-violent-drug-offenders-free-them-all/JGhSfJnN
Marc Allan Feldman
Libertarian Candidate, President of the United States
Unfortunately, I can’t support a candidate that won’t take contributions larger than $5, unless he’s starting with a couple million of his own money. Otherwise, there is no realistic chance that the campaign will raise enough money to do anything consequential. LP POTUS campaigns need to accept whatever money they can get, and try really hard to get as much as possible.
And sometimes the Establishment parties do, indeed, implement libertarian policies. Our laws are more gay-friendly and pot-friendly than they used to be.
Although I don’t think the LP had much to do with it. Progressives seem more successful in pushing some libertarian issues than do libertarians (alas).
I agree. I think the main reason why more people support gay marriage and legal marijuana is simply because they no longer believe that homosexuality is wrong or that weed is dangerous.
If they had really been persuaded by the libertarian arguments on those subjects, there would also be more support for things like polygamous marriage and legalizing cocaine. Sadly, I see no evidence of any additional support for either of those things.
Those two factors were tied for ninth place. This is another example of how I will give a lttle bit more than other other candidates. (My top ten goes to eleven).
I am glad that you like the quote “he Libertarian Party should be less about limited government, and more about unlimited individuals.” This speaks directly against the criticism of Libertarians as pro-wealthy or pro-Big Corporations or anti-Environment. We need to re-emphasize that the only reason we want less power for government is because we want more power for individuals.
Ha! Didn’t notice that….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o
I do like that quote. Thanks for drawing my attention to it!
The numbering is off in the post (there are two #9s), but I would like to steal this phrase from Dr. Feldman for broader use within the Libertarian Party.
I think that libertarians pushing issues like you mentioned has helped change things. Libertarians have been a part of these coalitions.
One problem, however, is that a lot of these changes have come with non-libertarian strings attached to them, even if they are steps in the right direction.
Andy: “The only problem with this is that Republicans (and Democrats too for that matter) frequently pretend to be in favor of things …”
I knew someone would raise that “problem.” But it wasn’t what I was talking about. I’m talking about the Dems and GOP actually pre-empting the issue, not just the rhetoric.
And sometimes the Establishment parties do, indeed, implement libertarian policies. Our laws are more gay-friendly and pot-friendly than they used to be.
Although I don’t think the LP had much to do with it. Progressives seem more successful in pushing some libertarian issues than do libertarians (alas).
Sooner or later they will have to deliver on promises or lose votes to a different party. Just as the dynamic with the socialists, progressives and prohibitionists played out a century ago.
“Root’s Teeth Are Awesome
February 17, 2015 at 11:37 am
>> whatever liberty issue gains traction with the public, before the Libertarian party can benefit, the Republican party will jump in, and get out in front with the issue in a bigger, louder, more effective way. Gun rights, marriage equality, marijuana, civil forfeiture, whatever. If it starts to succeed, they will pre-empt us. <<
Nothing wrong with that. Who cares whether it's the Dems or GOP that gets credit, so long as liberty triumphs?"
The only problem with this is that Republicans (and Democrats too for that matter) frequently pretend to be in favor of things, only to end up stabbing people who support whatever that thing is in the back, or to present a watered down version of whatever the thing in question is.
Bottom line, do not trust mainstream Republicans or mainstream Democrats.
I don’t feel like re-reading the whole thread to find the answer, was such a scenario ever discussed at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/01/debatediscussion-thread-with-declared-candidates-for-the-2016-libertarian-presidential-nomination/ ?
The more I read about Mr Feldman’s stances and views, the more I like him as an alternative to Jim Gray for the VP spot on the ticket (assuming Johnson is the nominee, again).
Reagan only had great rhetoric on some of the issues. He spouted warmongering and religious right swill even before he became president.
Exactly wrong. Ronald Reagan had great rhetoric:
“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”
Then he expanded the budget, added to the debt, Iran/Contra, etc.
The GOP is happy to pre-empt our rhetoric, but they will not give up the authoritarian state.
Exactly!
>> whatever liberty issue gains traction with the public, before the Libertarian party can benefit, the Republican party will jump in, and get out in front with the issue in a bigger, louder, more effective way. Gun rights, marriage equality, marijuana, civil forfeiture, whatever. If it starts to succeed, they will pre-empt us. <<
Nothing wrong with that. Who cares whether it's the Dems or GOP that gets credit, so long as liberty triumphs?
If the LP could get the Dems or GOP to "steal our issues" and actually slash taxes, deregulate businesses, or close overseas military bases, then they're welcome to the credit.
The Socialist Party got its agenda passed without winning Congress or the White House. I wish the LP lost the way the Socialists "lost."
I’m not sold either, but I am always open to being proven wrong.
Interesting ideas, but, like the “Milnes Strategy,” people should be very skeptical of its practical results. It should be tried out in local races to prove the concept before trying to roll this out nationally.
More articles at https://independentpoliticalreport.com/?s=feldman for anyone who is interested.
Neat ideas. Looking forward to hearing more.