28 responses so far ↓

• 1 George Phillies // Feb 2, 2012 at 10:51 am

  Perhaps a betting pool: How long until the next set of changes in the requirements?

• 2 zapper // Feb 2, 2012 at 11:05 am

  Very similar to what I suggested on another thread.

  I will bet in your pool that these rules will not change again in this election cycle.

• 3 Brian Holtz // Feb 2, 2012 at 11:20 am

  Ditto to what zapper said. It’s good that LNC has taken responsibility for how LP.org is used.

• 4 George Phillies // Feb 2, 2012 at 11:59 am

  @3 It has? You appear to be claiming that the LNC, the National Committee itself, set these requirements.

• 5 paulie // Feb 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm

  I’m fairly certain that in the prior thread Brian argued in favor of the FEC and/or contribution requirements. I would have to check back to see what zapper said, and I’m not sufficiently motivated to do that, at least at this time.

• 6 Humongous Fungus // Feb 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm

  I wonder which LNC members approved and disapproved which candidates, and what their reasoning was?

• 7 Thane Eichenauer // Feb 2, 2012 at 12:18 pm

  I also put in my virtual two bits on “no more changes”. If you can’t get 5 of 18 libertarians to agree that you are a worthy candidate for President that is a pretty good case that you are not a worthy candidate.

• 8 Brian Holtz // Feb 2, 2012 at 12:35 pm

  @4 The LNC can change the requirements if it wants to. “Accepted responsibility” might be more apt than “taken responsibility”, but I don’t have any inside info about any recent LNC deliberations on this topic.

  @5 I did say that FEC/contribution requirements were an improvement over the initial pro forma requirements, but I also said they would be obviated by requiring a threshold of approval among support markets like donors, state chairs, LNC members, delegates, life members, etc.

• 9 Robert Capozzi // Feb 2, 2012 at 12:53 pm

  Getting approval from 5 LNCers feels off to me. Opens things up for favoritism and horseplay…

• 10 NewFederalist // Feb 2, 2012 at 1:27 pm

  This entire exercise is ridiculous. As we used to say in the 60′s… open it up or shut it down!

• 11 Dr. Tom Stevens // Feb 2, 2012 at 2:13 pm

  O.K. I was going to blog about these changes but I didn’t. Here’s why.

  The actual page for the listing of the Presidential Candidates was taken down and an old blog article was updated 1/31/12 to add the 5 LNC member requirement.

  Those listed had until 2/3/12 to get the 5 LNC members to vote for them to remain being listed. I assume they are in the process of getting those approvals and, as reported, on 2/3/12, we will get the new list and the original candidate page will then be restored.

  Does anyone have any more information on the topic?

• 12 Jose C // Feb 2, 2012 at 4:55 pm

  @2 and @7

  I will take that bet. I bet $1.oo the criteria for listing candidates for the Libertarian Presidential nomination at LP.org will change. The looser of the bet has to contribute $1.oo to the charity of the winner’s choice except that the charity cannot take taxpayer support directly (this leaves out originations such as Planned Parenthood and NPR), cannot actively engage to enact policies in violation of the Constitution (this leaves out organizations such as the ACLU), and cannot be an anti-religious organization (this leaves out organizations such as Atheist United).

• 13 Thane Eichenauer // Feb 2, 2012 at 11:56 pm

  Here’s to speculating when Sam Sloan qualifies to appear at:

  http://2012.libertarian-party.org/

• 14 Jose C. // Feb 3, 2012 at 11:06 am

  There is something else wrong with what has been written. Someone reading this who is not involved in the Party would assume only those candidates listed are seeking the nomination for President of the Libertarian Party. Obviously this is not correct.

  They would also assume those criteria listed are the criteria for being nominated at the national convention. For example for a candidate to be nominated at the national convention five members of the National Convention must approve. Obviously this is not correct.

  The Party should fix these misconceptions.

• 15 ralph swanson // Feb 3, 2012 at 6:29 pm

  I would suggest they list everyone with a special heading for those who meet requirements. Maybe adding ability to pass the Nolan Quiz, experience in public office and basic agreement with the platform wouldn’t hurt either.

• 16 LP presidential candidate James Ogle discusses Roseanne Barr & the LP website | Independent Political Report // Feb 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm

  [...] and other LP presidential candidates were removed from the party website several days ago after the LP changed the criteria for listing. In response, Ogle writes: I’m glad they did that, because it gives the team practice for [...]

• 17 Dr. Tom Stevens // Feb 4, 2012 at 6:09 pm

  Well Paulie. It seems you were right and I was wrong. I should have had less faith that those in charge had a plan.

  It is now February 4th. The fundraising criteria are gone and we still have no idea who voted for the candidates still listed. Did Sam Sloan miss by one, or by two LNC members? Who are the five who voted for those listed?

  Have those not listed been contacted? Carla Howell told Sam Sloan she would submit his name to the LNC members for a vote. Did she do that? What was the result?

  Is it time for a sunshine law for the LP? Or is it time for a revolution?

• 18 paulie // Feb 4, 2012 at 6:16 pm

  What do you mean by revolution?

  For the record, I would be interested in knowing the answer to the questions you ask @17 as well.

• 19 paulie // Feb 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm

  BTW, what is Sloan’s campaign site? I have been told he has one, but I don’t know what the URL is.

  Is it time for a sunshine law for the LP?

  I co-founded a LP Transparency AKA Sunshine Caucus a couple of years ago. Unfortunately it seems to have faded away. If anyone would like to help work on reviving it, please let me know.

• 20 NewFederalist // Feb 4, 2012 at 6:37 pm

  It seems a shame that a “Sunshine Caucus” would even be necessary in an organization like the LP.

• 21 paulie // Feb 4, 2012 at 6:43 pm

  It’s necessary in any organization.

  Human beings are not angels, no matter what their goals.

• 22 paulie // Feb 4, 2012 at 6:52 pm

  I think a big part of the problem with the last iteration of that caucus was hypocrisy. The other organizers wanted to conduct caucus business on non-open email lists rather than in public fora.

  If I get involved with another sunshine caucus, I would like all its discussions to be open to anyone who wants to read them.

• 23 NewFederalist // Feb 4, 2012 at 7:51 pm

  “Human beings are not angels, no matter what their goals.” – Paulie 2012

  “People anxious to be deceived are easy dupes.” – The Grand Duke Alexander of Russia 1932

  Two quotable quotes!

• 24 Dr. Tom Stevens // Feb 5, 2012 at 12:50 am

  Re: 19

  Sam tells me this is his temporary website although he is working on putting up a new one:

  http://www.anusha.com/sam4pres.htm

• 25 Dr. Tom Stevens // Feb 5, 2012 at 12:53 am

  Re: 18

  I mean the time may soon be coming when some may feel active revolt, disobedience and action is the only way to save the party.

• 26 paulie // Feb 5, 2012 at 1:01 am

  Many have felt that way at various times throughout the party’s existence.

• 27 Jim Burns Added to LP.org Listing of Presidential Candidates | Independent Political Report // Feb 6, 2012 at 4:16 pm

  [...] LP.org Presidential Candidate Listing Requirements Revised Again [...]

• 28 News Hound // Feb 7, 2012 at 4:15 pm

  News Hound // Feb 7, 2012 at 4:09 pm

  http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/vote-should-the-libertarian-party-list-presidential-candidates-at-its-web-site

  Vote: Should the Libertarian Party list presidential candidates at its web site?
  posted by Staff on Feb 07, 2012

  Dear fellow Libertarians,
  Members of the Libertarian National Committee have been debating whether or not to list presidential candidates at our web site, and if we do, whether to qualify those who are posted.
  There are good arguments for all sides.
  Examples of reasons for listing Libertarian presidential candidates:

  To inform members and, in particular, delegates who must choose our nominee.
  To inform the media and the general voting public, some of whom will vote in primaries.
  To offset the lack of institutional and media support for Libertarian Party candidates.

  Examples of reasons not to list presidential candidates:

  To screen out candidates who are not dedicated to advancing our libertarian agenda, or who actually oppose it.
  To exclude individuals who appear to be disingenuously using the LP.
  To disqualify candidates who are running for the nomination of more than one party.
  To avoid publicizing candidates whose presentation is viewed by most Libertarians as embarrassing or inappropriate for a presidential candidate and who could reflect badly on the party.

  Many Libertarian National Committee members have struggled with the right approach to balancing these issues. Despite several attempts to come up with objective criteria, no ideal approach has yet been found. Some argue that the disclaimer now posted at LP.org is sufficient to demonstrate that listed candidates do not necessarily meet with the approval of the party and its members. (Note that candidates can still run for the Presidential nomination whether or not they are listed.)

  An LNC motion to decide whether to entirely remove the list of candidates is currently pending.
  What’s your view? Vote today on how you think this delicate matter should be handled.
  In Liberty,
  Carla Howell
  Executive Director
  Libertarian National Committee
  P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party with a mission to give voters a choice for much less Big Government, much lower taxes, and much lower government spending. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.

  3 News Hound // Feb 7, 2012 at 4:13 pm

  http://www.lp.org/poll/should-the-libertarian-party-list-presidential-candidates-at-its-web-site

  Polls

  Feb 07, 2012

  Should the Libertarian Party list presidential candidates at its web site?

  Yes. List every Libertarian presidential candidate that we know of without qualification.
  21% (91 votes)

  Limited: List every candidate who is a dues-paying member of the LP and has a functioning web site.
  25% (108 votes)

  Limited: List every candidate who meets the above criteria, plus meets the approval of at least 5 LNC members.
  15% (66 votes)

  Limited: List every candidate who meets the criteria and is not disqualified by at least 12 (2/3rds) of LNC members.
  16% (70 votes)

  Limited: List every candidate who petitions LP members and gets at least 100 to approve their being listed.
  13% (57 votes)

  Use other limits, or do something else: Go to our Facebook page and post your ideas!
  3% (14 votes)

  No. Candidates should generate their own publicity and makes themselves known to LP members.
  6% (27 votes)

  Total votes: 433

Leave a Comment