86 responses so far ↓

• 1 Krzysztof Lesiak // Jan 7, 2013 at 1:43 am

  Starchild, how did u get that name, lol, also why is that ur name??

• 2 Starchild // Jan 7, 2013 at 1:57 am

  Hi Krzysztof – Fair question. I chose the name a while back. I first used it as a computer handle, and then it kind of became my “rave name” when I was very into the rave (electronic music dance party) scene. Gradually it just sort of evolved into my name as I started using it more, and eventually I got tired of people asking me “what’s your REAL name?” and got it legally changed.

• 3 William Saturn // Jan 7, 2013 at 3:16 am

  Paulie, I noticed your latest posts have used downstyle capitalization for the title, is this now the favored format?

• 4 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 3:25 am

  Not sure that it really matters.

  For most of the time I wrote IPR headlines I think I usually either did it this way or whichever way they were originally (other than all caps) if I was copy and pasting them.

  At some point fairly recently Trent said they should have all or almost all first letters of words capitalized.

  Then someone who is an experienced writer/journalist told me that was wrong.

  Now, I just don’t even worry about it either way, unless/until Warren has something to say about it.

• 5 Kevin Knedler // Jan 7, 2013 at 9:11 am

  I won’t speak to the LNCC but will to the LSLA.
  OK, let’s go “silo” these organizations (LSLA and LNC) and insure they work totally independent. NOT.
  As the person on the LNC that was the leading proponent of allowing some LSLA designates on the LNC committees, I want MORE of this! Our bench is not deep enough and big enough in the political arena and we have to work TOGETHER. Who should assume the LNC has the answers and talents to address everything– it doesn’t and I saw it first hand between 2010 and 2012. THAT is the reason for allowing some outside of the LNC on LNC committees, such as AFFILIATE SUPPORT and IT. Goodness, why shouldn’t the Affiliate Support Committee and the LSLA work together? They should have darn near the same goals– to help state affiliates GROW!
  Plus, I am a HUGE proponent of building the bench and this is a way to bring some from the outside onto a committee and potentially see them run for the offices in the LNC in the future.
  And the LSLA appoints people to the LNC committees. No where does it say that it has to be LSLA Executive COmmittee members.
  Plus, the state leadership picks the LSLA leadership. If one doesn’t like things, then make a push at the LSLA meeting to get new blood into the LSLA. I was at the 2012 LSLA meeting in Las Vegas and only saw a few hands go up to volunteer for positions. I am glad leadership of the LSLA is NOT restricted to just state chairs. The state chairs have enough on their plates. the LSLA is a great place for other leaders to hone their skill sets and help the liberty movement.
  I continue to be amazed at the lack of organization skills I see in the LP. In the Ohio LP we work on building the brand, building the organization, and building the bench every single day. Fortunately, the Buckeyes get it.

• 6 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 10:54 am

  And the LSLA appoints people to the LNC committees. No where does it say that it has to be LSLA Executive COmmittee members.

  That’s a good point. If we could get some assurance that the state chairs themselves and not the LSLA exec comm appointed the members of those committees, maybe that would address the meat of the issue, or at least a chunk of it?

  There’s still the Oregon question, of course.

  BTW, if any state chairs reading are willing to ask that Starchild be added to the LSLA email list, he’s trying to get added to that. The California chair has ignored him about that. As far as I know a different state could ask to add him, although I don’t know that with absolute certainty.

  In general, I agree that we need non-LNC members on the various committees and more affiliate support and LNC-affiliate cooperation. However, I share some of Starchild’s concern about the mechanics and accountability of decisionmaking in the selection process for the various committees, including on the part of the LNC.

• 7 Mark Hilgenberg // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:02 am

  It does become difficult to promote the classical liberal view of liberty, meaning we fight against concentrations of power, especially when the LP concentrates so much power.

• 8 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:31 am

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grassrootslibertarians/ is designed to devolve power more in the LP. Starchild started it.

• 9 Mark Hilgenberg // Jan 7, 2013 at 11:52 am

  Here also. http://www.facebook.com/GrassrootsLibertarians

• 10 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 12:01 pm

  Thanks for the reminder…just posted a link to that at LP Sunshine Caucus

  https://www.facebook.com/groups/129862713843649/

• 11 Root's Teeth Are Awesome // Jan 7, 2013 at 2:12 pm

  Aaron Starr … is arguing that once the LNC created the LNCC, it gave up all control over that organization, like giving birth to a full-fledged adult.

  Is there anything to prevent the LNC from declaring either …

  1. That the LNCC is not longer affiliated with the LP.

  Or better yet …

  2. That any person affiliated with the LNCC can not run for national party office or serve as a national LP delegate.

  Angela Keaton was harassed for wearing a Boston Tea Party t-shirt (I think Starr was one of the complainers), so there’s precedent for ousting people affiliated with competing groups.

  Just say the LNCC is no longer part of the LP, so if you stay in the LNCC, you can’t participate in the LP.

  Yeah, it may be sleazy and Kafkaesque, but no more so than Starr’s claims for the LNCC’s independence, or the credential committee’s ignoring the Judicial committee’s ruling in seating the Reeves faction.

  It seems a lot of libertarian leaders (Starr among them, though not alone) just invent and twist the rules as they go along, to get their desired outcome.

  The LP is a Kafkaesque organization. They actually make the Demopublicans look honest.

• 12 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 2:18 pm

  Is there anything to prevent the LNC from declaring either …

  1. That the LNCC is not longer affiliated with the LP.

  Not that I know of, although I’d have to see if they are mentioned anywhere in bylaws.

  Or better yet …

  2. That any person affiliated with the LNCC can not run for national party office or serve as a national LP delegate.

  Yes, that would exceed the powers of the LNC under the present bylaws.

  Angela Keaton was harassed for wearing a Boston Tea Party t-shirt (I think Starr was one of the complainers), so there’s precedent for ousting people affiliated with competing groups.

  You mean the LNCC is a separate and competing political party?

  Just say the LNCC is no longer part of the LP, so if you stay in the LNCC, you can’t participate in the LP.

  Again, exceeds the authority of the LNC as I understand it.

  The LP is a Kafkaesque organization. They actually make the Demopublicans look honest.

  How closely did you pay attention to those parties’ national and state conventions last year?

• 13 Stewart Flood // Jan 7, 2013 at 2:43 pm

  Kevin @5,

  You’re making the same mistake you made when you first championed this idea. I agree that we need more appointments of people not on the LNC. The pool of people who are appointed to positions is too small.

  But giving the authority to make these appointments to an outside organization is wrong. It is wrong now, it was wrong then, and it will always be wrong. Why? Because the delegates at the convention did not elect them to the governing body of the party!

  I argued against this move and I am very glad that someone else is now raising the same red flags I saw when I was on the LNC.

  The LNCC should be shut down. It is out of control and has been for a long time. They ignored their own bylaws for years, with members who were required to donate $1000/year to be on the board failing to make their annual contributions for a number of years. Then they changed their bylaws to make it a closed “invitation only” organization.

  Now they no longer support libertarian candidates, like Jeremy Walters who almost won a state house seat in South Carolina, and who they refused to support.

  The LSLA is an organization that is a loose confederation of state leaders — originally just the state chairs but now expanded to include other leaders they find acceptable. It has never had any authority granted to it by the national convention and should not be appointing members of any official committee operated by the party.

  Kevin…I know you mean well and I know why you feel we need more people involved. I agree with that sentiment. But we should never have given any authority away to them. I voted against it. I hope that Starchild can get a majority of the committee to realize that it was a mistake and correct it.

• 14 Kevin Knedler // Jan 7, 2013 at 2:48 pm

  Stewart, I am open, as should the LNC to find another way to still get after the idea we need to expand our pool of talent. To have the state chairs choose who is on the LNC committees seems to undermine the very people they put in charge of their LSLA. Maybe the policy manual could stipulate that no officer on the LSLA can be on the LNC committee. Smarter people than me can get down in the weeds on this.

• 15 Be Rational // Jan 7, 2013 at 3:06 pm

  LNCC

  The LNCC seems to be two separate organizations on its site:

  Libertarian National Congressional Committee

  Libertarian National Campaign Committee

  Which is it now? Is one a part of the other, are they separate, is this a name change or a mistake or what?

  They are soliciting funds and appear to have hired an executive director.

  There has been no news about them anywhere as to having done anything in 2012. Did they support any candidates or do anything?

  Their own website seems to be more of a mystery than a source of information – a black hole looking for funding.

• 16 Evan McMahon // Jan 7, 2013 at 4:16 pm

  As the newly hired Executive Director of the LNCC, I would have liked for Starchild to have addressed his concerns with me or the LNCC Chairman, Mark Rutherford. I have spoken with Starchild in the past on other topics and have always extended a hand of both friendship and professionalism.

  To address some of the points that Starchild has addressed, concerning the LNCC, I would first like to point out that it appears that Starchild’s disapproval is not in the role and function of the LNCC, but rather the manner in which it was formed and the persons who have headed it in the past.

  Every national party is allowed, by the FEC, two authorized and segregated campaign committees. These committees are originally authorized by the party’s national committee, but the national committee can have no control or authority over the campaign committees. To date only three national parties have campaign committees: Democrats with the DCCC /DSCC, Republicans with the RNCC/RNSC and Libertarians with the LNCC.

  The sole function of these campaign committees is to recruit and support the candidates of their party. By fully utilizing their separate campaign committees, the national parties are able to spend less time on campaigns and put their energy and resources into promoting and expanding their party. If you look at the RNC and DNC, they don’t have much direct connection with campaigns, outside the presidential campaigns. Instead they let their campaign committees handle it. The RNC and DNC spend the majority of their time and resources on voter outreach and education, marketing, membership growth and messaging.

  The other issue raised by Starchild was on data sharing between the LNC and the LNCC. This is a pretty simple issue to resolve if he had only asked. The LNC and LNCC are required to share this information. Not just by contract, but as a matter of FEC regulation. The only relation between the two organizations, in the eyes of the FEC, is that of contribution and expenditure limits.
  I will be the first to admit that the LNCC, in the past, has fallen short of its mission. While the LNCC had provided limited support to candidates, it was being used to promote an anti-Obama message and to further the agenda and self-promotion of one individual. Since his September election has Chairman of the LNCC, Mark Rutherford has strived to rid the LNCC of that attitude and steer the organization back to the sole function of candidate recruitment and support.

  The leadership of both organizations have buried the hatchet, so to speak. Any bad blood or ill will perceived or otherwise, has faded. Geoff Neale, LNC Chairman, and Mark Rutherford agree that a self-sustaining, fully functional and mission driven LNCC will only be a benefit to the LNC.

  Since hiring me a month ago, as the full-time Executive Director, the LNCC has ceased all policy debates, developed a plan for supporting all 153 elected Libertarians and created transparency in which candidates are supported and to what level. I have also been working on creating a 12 week online intensive for candidates and campaign managers, as well as many other campaign oriented training and support programs.

  If you have questions about the function and role of the LNCC or what we will be doing over the next couple of years… please feel free to contact.

  In Liberty,

  Evan McMahon, Executive Director
  Libertarian National Campaign Committee

  emcmahon[at]lncc.org

• 17 Be Rational // Jan 7, 2013 at 5:25 pm

  @16 Nice start. Please answer my questions.

  For example, what is the name of LNCC?

  The LNCC seems to be two separate organizations on its site:

  Libertarian National Congressional Committee

  Libertarian National Campaign Committee

  Which is it now? Is one a part of the other, are they separate, is this a name change or a mistake or what?

• 18 paulie // Jan 7, 2013 at 5:48 pm

  It’s the same organization. One is its legal name, the other is a brand for fundraising/publicity purposes.

• 19 Evan McMahon // Jan 7, 2013 at 5:56 pm

  @17 Thank you for the question.

  Simple answer, they are one in the same. I was a little confused by this at first, too. The committee was formed, registered and files reports with the FEC under the name Libertarian National Congressional Committee. We have a DBA under the name Libertarian National Campaign Committee.

  Why the two names? The name used with the FEC and the incorporation was recommended in the FEC guides for national committees. It was loosely held, by the FEC, that the LNCC would be supporting only US House races. The LNCC elected to use the name Libertarian National Campaign Committee as a DBA for daily business and promotion. Because we recruit and support candidates up and down the ticket, not just House races. The DBA fits the role of the LNCC better and for the most part ends the confusion on how the LNCC can support all candidates. But even with the DBA, the FEC holds that, for now at least, all “electioneering” materials must state “Paid For By The Libertarian National Congressional Committee” as that is our official FEC registered name.

  Point of information, we are excluded from stepping into Presidential races, as our charter, bylaws and FEC preclude it. Presidential races are to be managed and supported by the LNC and state affiliates.

• 20 Kevin Knedler // Jan 7, 2013 at 7:30 pm

  Evan knows his stuff. Congrats Evan ! From your neigbors to the east.

• 21 Root's Teeth Are Awesome // Jan 7, 2013 at 8:36 pm

  Is the LNCC still an “invitation only” organization?

  That sounds like an independent fiefdom that is answerable to no one.

• 22 Starchild // Jan 7, 2013 at 8:37 pm

  Kevin @5 – We do indeed need a deeper bench and more participation on LNC committees by persons not on the LNC. I fully agree with you on that. Indeed, I have previously spoken out about this issue on the Libertarian National Committee. On May 19, not long after I was elected to the LNC, I posted the following to the committee’s discussion list:

  “…we should be seeking to populate committees with more Libertarians not on the LNC. So long as the LNC retains a strong level of oversight and the committees remain accountable enough to this body that the LNC’s duly delegated authority is not improperly transferred to persons who have not been elected as representatives by party members, I see no reason why we should not welcome and encourage greater participation from those who want to get involved and help. We are not well served by having a relatively small handful of people sitting on multiple committees, as it limits the input and help we get from our members, impedes greater communication between the national LP and state and local affiliates, and of course people taking on too much can become overburdened and less effective.”

  I have also been a leading advocate of openness and transparency on the LNC and in Libertarian Party governance in general, because it is difficult for people to get involved and help if they are kept in the dark and do not know what’s going on.

  Speaking of which Kevin, I have been trying to get added to the LSLA list so that I will be able to have better communication with our state chairs. I understand that state chairs can have other LP members added to this list and that there are a good number of non-chairs on the list, as well as at least one non-chair serving as an LSLA officer. Will you as Ohio LP chair ask that I be added?

  Stewart @13 did a good job in explaining why the LSLA as an organization should not be empowered to make LNC committee appointments, and I concur with everything he said in that message.

  I’ll reiterate however that eliminating a formal role in LNC governance for the LSLA does not mean that any state chair involved in the LSLA should be prevented from participating in nominating people to, or serving on, the Affiliate Support Committee. I welcome their participation. Under the approach I outlined in my message to the LNC which Paulie posted as an article in this thread,

  “Nominations of volunteers to serve on the Affiliate Support Committee [would be] solicited from the state chairs, and after such nominations have been made, [each chair would be empowered] to vote for up to three nominees, with those three persons getting the most votes then being appointed.”

  As you say, state chairs often have a lot on their plates, and there would be no requirement for chairs to participate in this nominating process, but it would be open to those wishing to do so, whether they were part of the LSLA or not.

  In short I see nothing to be gained, but many potential problems, with granting the LSLA appointment power as an organization, when the chairs themselves can be given the same authority directly without an organizational intermediary.

• 23 Jeremy C. Young // Jan 7, 2013 at 8:57 pm

  Weirdly (because I am not a Libertarian), I’ve met Evan on several occasions at non-LP rallies and activist events. I’ll go ahead and say he’s the single most energetic and organized activist I’ve ever met, in any party (and I know quite a few Democratic activists as well). The LP is well-served by employing Evan in any capacity. Congrats to Evan on his new position!

• 24 Starchild // Jan 7, 2013 at 9:03 pm

  Evan @16 – Thank you for weighing in. I actually do not have your contact information, and only heard yesterday that you had been appointed as the LNCC’s executive director.

  But even had that been otherwise, I remain committed to openness and transparency in governance. Having a public conversation about these matters rather than leaders discussing them in private, is in my view beneficial to our party, and need not in any way detract from friendship or professionalism. I strive to be friendly and respectful towards other Libertarians of all factions and points of view, and agree with the spirit of Thomas Jefferson’s remark that “I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.”

  You are correct that my concern is not with the existence of a Libertarian Party campaign committee (and I am aware that the FEC allows this), but rather with the way that the LNCC has been operating, as well as with its lack of accountability to the highest decision-making body in the Libertarian Party, our convention delegates.

  If that accountability exists, and the LNCC is operating in an open and transparent fashion in accord with our party’s principles, and not evidencing a conservative-leaning agenda or bias, then data-sharing and responsible use of the party’s resources by the LNCC will not be an issue as far as I am concerned.

  Let me ask you this: As LNCC executive director, do you agree with the claim attributed to Aaron Starr that the LNCC is a rogue organization [my choice of words] over which the elected leadership of the Libertarian Party has no control? What about Mark Rutherford as LNCC chair? Who are the other people currently involved with the LSLA, and where is their contact information listed?

• 25 Stewart Flood // Jan 7, 2013 at 9:13 pm

  Evan,

  Your selection as ED of the LNCC is certainly a positive step, but for a number of us it will take a lot of work to undo what the LNCC did over the past few years.

  In our case, we (SCLP) were told that “A state house race in South Carolina has no significance in the grand scheme of the Libertarian Party.”

  We lost that race by about 650 votes. Our candidate walked the district, debated the opponent, put out yard signs, went to town hall meetings and attended and lobbied at local government meetings for libertarian ideals. The party raised money for him and funded the campaign with more than $2k from our treasury.

  Mr Walters is willing to run again. He needs training as a candidate to help him be a better public speaker. He needs this help now, not a year from now when the official campaign season starts.

  You may recall me mentioning this race to you at the convention in Las Vegas. I told the LNC (and the LNCC) that the race would be close and could be won. The LNC cannot help us with a non-federal race, but now that we’ve proven that a state house race in South Carolina can have significance will the LNCC actually help us?

• 26 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 7, 2013 at 9:19 pm

  Evan said “I will be the first to admit that the LNCC, in the past, has fallen short of its mission. While the LNCC had provided limited support to candidates, it was being used to promote an anti-Obama message and to further the agenda and self-promotion of one individual. Since his September election has Chairman of the LNCC, Mark Rutherford has strived to rid the LNCC of that attitude and steer the organization back to the sole function of candidate recruitment and support.”

  Wow, Evan, thank you for that acknowledgement of what many of us believed to be the main problem, and thanks so much for weighing in here. I’m pleased to hear that you’ve been hired to work with the LNCC.

  I hope you’ll be a regular visitor here to IPR and keep us posted of events with your group. Perhaps many of us will change our opinion of the organization as time goes on.

• 27 Evan McMahon // Jan 7, 2013 at 9:47 pm

  @20 Thank you Mr. Knedler and I look forward to working with you and any other state chair that would like LNCC assistance in recruiting, training and supporting Libertarian candidates.

  @21 To be 100% honest, I’m not sure what the LNCC bylaws say on the matter of membership. That would be handled by the treasurer, secretary and the board…and is outside the scope of my job duties. I do however believe that membership is open to people who have donated $1,000 that year and that members elect the officers at a separate meeting during the national convention.

  @23 Jeremey, thank you for the glowing endorsement.

  @24 Starchild, please forgive my tone if seems harsh, as that is not intended (but the nature of text on the screen can make it seem so).

  I hold that if a person as a problem or question about another person or organization, they should first reach out to the person for either clarification or redress. I support both openness and decent, but only after an opportunity has been afforded to the “other side” and the commenter has taken steps to be fully informed.

  I am doing my level best to make the LNCC more accountable and transparent, but I’ve only had this job for 37 days. So far I have developed a plan for publicly displaying the candidates that are getting LNCC support and listing exactly what they receive. I’m opening up the candidate endorsement process (pulling back the curtain so to speak). I’m also going to be creating pages on our website to inform people on the status, funding and effectiveness of all LNCC projects.

  It’s not a claim that the LNC has no control over the LNCC. Hate to put it in such blunt terms…it’s a fact. The LNCC is a separate committee that the FEC makes very clear must be under the control and authority of NO other committee. We share data as is required under our contract and federal election law. This both benefits and protects the two organizations.

  Instead of using inflammatory langue and calling the LNCC a “rogue organization”…why don’t we work together to clearly define the role and function of the LNCC and strive to build an open and beneficial relationship.

  I can not speak to who is in a leadership role in the LSLA as I am not a member.

  In the past 37 days I have made many changes to the LNCC website and will be making many more. Unlike the LNC office, I am the sole staffer and it will take some time to make all of the changes. In the near future I intend on having a page with the full list of LNCC board members (with bios).

  I hope we can work together to build a strong LP.

  Evan McMahon, Executive Director
  Libertarian National Campaign Committee

  emcmahon[at]lncc.org

• 28 Evan McMahon // Jan 7, 2013 at 10:27 pm

  @25 Stewart, that was obviously before my time at the LNCC. I can say that I disagree with the reason that was given at the time. However, I can’t say for certain that I would have made a different call. Knowing what resources would have been available…I just don’t know. Hindsight is 20/20. I do know that I will make bad calls and there will be candidates that I wish we could have done more for. But resources are limited and we have to do the most good that we can with them.

  I can state for a fact that “A state house race in South Carolina has no significance in the grand scheme of the Libertarian Party” will NEVER be a reason for not supporting a candidate. Never!

  If Mr. Walters does decide to run, and I will help you re-recruit him you would like, I would be very happy to help him. We have a process for endorsement that is designed to take away nepotism and cronyism, but I will push and fight for Mr. Walters getting the LNCC support.

  @26 Jill, thank you. I know that it was more than bad blood…it was toxic. When Mark Rutherford stepped up to be chair he did it with a couple of conditions. First, the LNCC would move away from policy debates and focus on candidate support and training. Second, the LNCC would bring on a full-time campaign expert to keep the organization’s mission moving forward.

  When I came on board as the Executive Director it was with the understanding that a system must be put in place to ensure endorsements and support was being given based solely on the viability and merits of the candidate and the campaign and not on what LP faction they belonged to.

  I probably will limit my commenting on IPR. It would be inappropriate and counterproductive for me to comment (positively or negatively) on the actions and processes of the LNC or any other Libertarian organization. I will however comment often on LNCC and campaign related articles.

  We will stumble and we will fall short from time to time…but I hope that the LNCC can earn your trust and respect.

  Evan McMahon, Executive Director
  Libertarian National Campaign Committee

  emcmahon[at]lncc.org

• 29 Starchild // Jan 7, 2013 at 10:36 pm

  Evan @27 – Excuse me, I meant to say “Who are the other people currently involved with the LNCC”, not the LSLA.

  I’ll try to respond to the rest of what you’ve said when I have more time later.

• 30 paulie // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:03 am

  I’ll reserve any serious comments for when I am sober, but for now I’ll just say thanks Evan for participating here and helping clear the air.

• 31 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:23 am

  Evan, I understand you may feel commenting might be inappropriate, but you may occasionally have news items you’d like to share and you’re welcome to either add it as a comment to an open thread, or send it to one of the writers to post for you. Some of our email information is listed in the “About IPR” section, and you can also find some of us on Facebook.

  Good luck on your new job!

• 32 Jill Pyeatt // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:23 am

  Paulie, have a drink for me–today was a tough day!

• 33 paulie // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:33 am

  I would but I’ve had a few too many already. I’ll make one retroactive for you.

• 34 paulie // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:39 am

  Oh and I will just take this one moment to be off topic (hopefully it will not be too much of a trend)

  

• 35 Root's Teeth Are Awesome // Jan 8, 2013 at 2:38 am

  Evan: The LNCC is a separate committee that the FEC makes very clear must be under the control and authority of NO other committee.

  What about the delegates? Do they have any authority over the LNCC?

  Are you saying the LNCC could endorse communist policies and candidates and the LP delegates could do nothing about it?

  Sounds like the LNCC is the de facto personal property of the tiny group that now controls it. They are in effect members-for-life, with new members by “invitation only.”

• 36 Andy // Jan 8, 2013 at 4:56 am

  Stewart Flood said: “In our case, we (SCLP) were told that ‘A state house race in South Carolina has no significance in the grand scheme of the Libertarian Party.’”

  Wow, I’m astounded that anyone in the Libertarian Party would say something so stupid. A Libertarian Party candidate winning a seat in the state legislature would have been huge. It has been over a decade since the last time the Libertarian Party elected a person to a seat in a state legislature anywhere in the country, and the only places where the party ever elected anyone to a seat in a state legislature were low population northern states. South Carolina is a southern state, and it is ranked #24 in population. Anyone who does not think that it would have been an important victory for the Libertarian Party to have elected somebody to a seat in the South Carolina state legislature is very shortsighted, and this is NOT a person who should be placed in any sort of leadership role in the party.

  “We lost that race by about 650 votes. Our candidate walked the district, debated the opponent, put out yard signs, went to town hall meetings and attended and lobbied at local government meetings for libertarian ideals. The party raised money for him and funded the campaign with more than $2k from our treasury.”

  This is a damn shame. There really needs to be a priority in this party for electing people to seats in state legislatures. I think that these are winnable races, certainly more so than running for US House or any statewide offices, plus they are more impressive than getting elected to some local office to which hardly anyone pay attention.

  I had an idea a while ago for an organization that I’d call something like, the Elect Libertarians to State Legislatures fund. Money could be raised and then released to candidates running for seats in state legislatures based on which candidates are in the most winnable races. The fact that this candidate in South Carolina was in a race where his only opponent was an independent would have been an excellent race to target for something like this.

  There was a Libertarian Party member in Illinois this year who had a good opportunity to get elected to the state legislature which was unfortunately blown. This candidate had a chance to be in a race where they would have been running against an unpopular Democrat in a district where the Democrats did not have a majority, and where there was no Republican in the race. Unfortunately, a lot of this candidate’s petition signatures got thrown on a technically, which could have easily been avoided if this candidates petition drive had utilized better planning, so they did not make the ballot. There was no other candidate on the ballot to opposes this unpopular Democrat, so the Democrat got reelected without opposition.

  I think that with better strategic planning, the Libertarian Party could have elected somebody to the state legislatures in South Carolina this, and there’s a much higher than usual chance that the party could have also elected somebody to the state legislature in Illinois. This would have been huge for the party.

  “Mr Walters is willing to run again. He needs training as a candidate to help him be a better public speaker. He needs this help now, not a year from now when the official campaign season starts.”

  It’s great if he runs again, but the only bad thing is that the next time he will probably have to compete against more than one candidate for the office, plus he will likely be running against an incumbent. So his chance of getting elected next time could be more slim.

  “You may recall me mentioning this race to you at the convention in Las Vegas. I told the LNC (and the LNCC) that the race would be close and could be won. The LNC cannot help us with a non-federal race, but now that we’ve proven that a state house race in South Carolina can have significance will the LNCC actually help us?”

  I recall that the LNC donated $50,000 to a Libertarian Party candidate for the city council in Indianappolis, IN, and this is not a federal office, so why can’t they donate to a candidate for the state legislature?

• 37 Chuck Moulton // Jan 8, 2013 at 5:08 am

  I’m glad to see Mark Rutherford and Evan McMahon working to make the LNCC an effective organization that can help our LP candidates.

  Evan McMahon wrote (@16):

  The other issue raised by Starchild was on data sharing between the LNC and the LNCC. This is a pretty simple issue to resolve if he had only asked. The LNC and LNCC are required to share this information. Not just by contract, but as a matter of FEC regulation. The only relation between the two organizations, in the eyes of the FEC, is that of contribution and expenditure limits.

  With all due respect, that’s ridiculous.

  The FEC has contribution limits from individuals for each party committee and aggregate contribution limits from individuals for all party committees. For example, at one point several years ago a donor could give $25,000/year to the LNC and LNCC, but only $35,000 aggregate between them. This FEC regulation was used as an excuse for data sharing.

  In order to ensure that donors don’t exceed the aggregate limit among all party committees, does it make sense for the LNC to send its list of 30,000 donors to the LNCC? Or does it make sense for the LNCC to send its list of 8 donors to the LNC? The answer is pretty obvious. And it isn’t what we’re doing right now.

  The Libertarian Party’s greatest asset is its database of donors, volunteers, and inquiries. It should not be shared lightly.

• 38 Starchild // Jan 8, 2013 at 9:15 am

  Evan @27 – Thank you for your further comments. I didn’t find your tone harsh, but I appreciate your sensitivity to the potential for things to sometimes come across more strongly online than they are meant. If my own remarks seem in any way unfriendly, please likewise be aware this is not my intent. But I would be remiss in my responsibility to the LP if I did not ask the tough questions!

  By the way, thank you for sharing your email so folks can get in touch with you. I’ve taken the liberty as an IPR editor of replacing the @ sign in the address you provided with “[at]” in order to reduce the possibility of you receiving spam as a result of that address being auto-harvested off this website by spammers. (I’ve been meaning to ask that the same thing be done with the email addresses listed on LP.org; I’ve personally received spam via my starchild[at]lp.org address, despite never using that address for anything.)

  Regarding the LNCC’s status, you write that “It’s not a claim that the LNC has no control over the LNCC. Hate to put it in such blunt terms…it’s a fact. The LNCC is a separate committee that the FEC makes very clear must be under the control and authority of NO other committee.”

  Is this also LNCC chair Mark Rutherford’s position? And would you mind citing the specific Federal Election Commission language that you believe would make it illegal for the LNCC to be in any way accountable to the LNC, and providing a link where that language can be referenced? I am not saying you’re wrong — I actually have no opinion at this point on whether what you say is legally correct or not, but I (and I’m sure others) would like the opportunity to see the basis for what you say and form our own opinions on the matter.

  Let’s assume for the moment that you are correct. If the folks running the Libertarian National Campaign Committee are not subject to any oversight by the elected LP leaders who sit on the Libertarian National Committee which created the LNCC, then that leaves the critical question and issues raised by “Root’s Teeth” @35, which I hope you will address.

  It is actually more in the interests of bottom-up party governance for the LNCC to be directly accountable to Libertarian Party convention delegates, rather than to the LNC. So this all could yet work out for the best.

  But if it is the position of those on the LNCC that they are accountable to neither the delegates nor to the LNC, then we have a problem. In that case I think the term “rogue organization” would be completely warranted, and in fact I can think of a couple stronger terms that might also be warranted.

  Hopefully that’s not your position. Yet the situation would still beg the age-old political question of who knew what when:

  • Was anyone involved in the project of creating the LNCC aware, prior to the committee being created, that (at least in their opinion, and possibly in point of fact) the LNCC would upon its creation become a completely independent group not subject to any LNC oversight?

  • If anyone was aware of this, was that fact properly disclosed to LNC members prior to their vote to create the LNCC?

  • If the FEC rules allegedly making the LNCC not subject to LNC oversight were (conveniently?) not discovered until after the fact, who discovered them and when, and what did that person do with the information? Was the LNC formally notified?

  In other words, did the LNC members who voted for this knowingly set up a situation where then-LNCC-chair Wayne Allyn Root and his hand-picked colleagues would have unrestricted access to the Libertarian Party’s mailing list and donor information without any LNC oversight? Or were they merely guilty of being duped into making an incredibly stupid decision? I realize you may not have the answers to all or maybe even any of these questions. But someone should answer them.

  Meanwhile, back at the ranch… I am glad to hear that you are planning to make many more changes to the LNCC website. It definitely needs them!

  Most critically: Is it your intention to make the site’s content politically balanced, so that it does not project a conservative tone, with civil liberties and issues that will appeal to the left emphasized equally along with economic liberties and issues that will appeal to people on the right?

  Also, in the interests of transparency, will you disclose the salary you are being paid as the LNCC’s executive director, and where the money is coming from to fund it? If you are the sole employee, I presume the information can be found in FEC reports, but voluntary disclosure is always better for bottom-up governance than people having to go and research such things. And who all is currently involved with the LNCC?

  Notwithstanding the above questions and concerns, I appreciate what you have said here regarding your intentions. As “Be Rational” said, it’s a start — and to be honest, a more positive, open, and promising response on behalf of the LNCC to my concerns than I frankly expected. If you truly are committed to transparency, adherence to the Libertarian Party’s Statement of Principles and Platform, and accountability to our party’s membership as represented by our convention delegates, then we are on the same page where it counts!

  I share your hope that we can work together to build a strong Libertarian Party — and more importantly, a Libertarian Party that stays true to the cause of minimum government/maximum freedom for which it stands, and advances that cause.

• 39 George Phillies // Jan 8, 2013 at 9:38 am

  ”

  The other issue raised by Starchild was on data sharing between the LNC and the LNCC. This is a pretty simple issue to resolve if he had only asked. The LNC and LNCC are required to share this information. Not just by contract, but as a matter of FEC regulation. The only relation between the two organizations, in the eyes of the FEC, is that of contribution and expenditure limits.”

  To be charitable, this claim is inaccurate. The two organizations have a joint donation limit. In order to satisfy the limit, they only heed to share the names of donors who give more than half the limit. This is a math issue. Also, the sharing only needs to go in one direction, or to a third party accountant.

• 40 George Phillies // Jan 8, 2013 at 9:40 am

  “The LNC cannot help us with a non-federal race,”

  That’s simply not true. The LNC must comply with local state law, a Federal law requirement, but that limit varies from state to state. For example, the LNC cannot give a dime to a nonFederal candidate in Massachusetts. In other states, they simply have to file paperwork someplace.

• 41 Be Rational // Jan 8, 2013 at 11:54 am

  From @39:

  “To be charitable, this claim is inaccurate. The two organizations have a joint donation limit. In order to satisfy the limit, …

  … they only heed to share the names of donors who give more than half the limit. This is a math issue.” – GP

  It is a math issue, but GP’s math is NOT correct.

  They would have to reveal any donor who’s total contributions exceed the difference between the maximum allowable combined donation to both committees and the maximum allowable donation to one committee.

  As Chuck Moulton pointed out: “For example, at one point several years ago a donor could give $25,000/year to the LNC and LNCC, but only $35,000 aggregate between them.”

  So at the time referenced, either the LNC or the LNCC would have to report to the other whenever any donor had donated in excess of $10,000. (for practical purposes, $10,000 or more.)

  Max. Combined total contribution – Max. single committee contrubution = Reportable donor amount

  The LP is apparently allowed to have another independent committee under FEC rules. This would change the formula. Of course we have a lot to learn from our current problems with the LNCC before the LP creates the LNSC.

• 42 Be Rational // Jan 8, 2013 at 11:59 am

  “whose” not “who’s” – edit button

• 43 Stewart Flood // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:13 pm

  Dr Phillies @40,

  I am not sure how SC election law would deal with a federal committee contributing to a non-federal campaign. My current best guess is that if it were allowed, any LNC funds would be counted as part of the existing maximum contribution that the state and local parties are allowed to provide to a candidate. I believe this is either $5k or $10k per election cycle.

  If it were not counted as part of our cap, then they would probably be held to the $1k limit on contributions. I know that the LNCC would not be counted so they would be held to this same $1k limit, again assuming that a federal committee is even permitted to assist.

  I believe that our total state/local party contributions came to somewhere between $2k and $3k, or possibly a little over $3k. I’m not the state treasurer so I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me.

• 44 Stewart Flood // Jan 8, 2013 at 12:16 pm

  PS: The candidate raised about another $2k from individual contributions. This included donations from several readers of IPR who contributed to the campaign after reading about it here last fall.

• 45 George Phillies // Jan 8, 2013 at 2:36 pm

  @41 It is your arithmetic that does not work.

  The only way a donor can give more than the maximum total is to give more than half to one of the two committees. Each committee divulges to the other so soon as the ‘more than half’ has come through the door. The other immediately checks against its less than half records, which it does not need to divulge, and advises if there is an issue.

  Arithmetic can be your friend, even if your lips get tired counting.

• 46 Be Rational // Jan 8, 2013 at 2:43 pm

  @45 Look at the example numbers:

  $35,000 max to both.

  $25,000 max to one.

  If the donor gives $10,000.01 to one then he can only give 24,999.99 to the other.

  Half would be $17,500.00

  $10,000.01 < $17,500.00

  Sorry, GP, but you are clearly wrong and not math savvy.

• 47 George Phillies // Jan 8, 2013 at 2:46 pm

  I understand that replacing web pages is a pain in the neck, but the LNCC could at least take down the current

  “Media Room

  Are you seeking an engaging personality who attracts viewers, listeners and readers?

  Wayne Allyn Root is available to provide a libertarian perspective on the issues of the day.

  The media has called Wayne “a dynamic, youthful combination of Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, and Ron Paul … on STEROIDS!”

  Wayne can be reached promptly through our contact page: Contact Page.

  You can read more about Wayne at: About the Chairman.

  What Members of the Media are Saying about Wayne

  “Wayne Allyn Root is one of my favorite guests. He is loud, colorful, opinionated, often outrageous and controversial. He isn’t afraid to state his opinions on anything and everything. Unfortunately I haven’t found any I agree with.”
  –Bill Maher, Television Host
  Host of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher”
  Fomer Host of ABC’s “Politically Incorrect”

  “Wayne is one of my 3 favorite guests of all-time. They are Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Wayne Root.”
  –Bill Cunningham (Nationally Syndicated Host, Premiere Radio Network)

  “Wayne’s…the Warren Buffett of his world.”
  –James J. Cramer, CNBC Host
  Host of “Mad Money”
  Markets Commentator for CNBC and TheStreet.com

  “Wayne’s success is mind-blowing…talking to Wayne Allyn Root is like talking to Tony Robbins.”
  –Fox News Las Vegas

  “If Obama has the audacity of hope, Root simply has audacity.”
  –Columbia (The magazine of Columbia University)

  “Wayne Allyn Root: The Life of the 3rd Party.”
  –New York Times

  “What Wayne wants, Wayne Root gets.”
  –Reason magazine

  “Wayne Allyn Root wants you to become the next Wayne Allyn Root. And you should take him up on it.”
  –American Spectator magazine

  “Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root is the last great hope for America.”
  –Mancow Muller, Nationally Syndicated Host
  The Mancow Show

  “Wayne Allyn Root is the most dynamic communicator of any third party Presidential candidate ever. I’ve interviewed all the major party candidates — I believe that Wayne can out-speak, out-debate and out-shine all of them.”
  –Al Rantel, Host
  KABC Radio, Los Angeles”

• 48 Starchild // Jan 9, 2013 at 8:06 am

  I hope some of the other LP state chairs who may be reading this thread will weigh in on the concerns regarding the Libertarian State Leadership Alliance, and the idea of giving the state chairs the ability to directly make appointments to the LNC’s Affiliate Support Committee, rather than only being able to do so via the LSLA as an intermediary.

  Perhaps Ohio LP chair Kevin Knedler, who has already weighed in, will also have a chance to respond to my responses @22 to his previous comments.

• 49 George Phillies // Jan 9, 2013 at 9:11 am

  @46

  The objective is to detect that a check has been received that is in excess of the limit , and deal in accord with the law with the matter. In order to give over the top, you must give one of the two groups more than half the limit. Suppose I have given half the limit minus a dollar to the LNCC. There is no issue. Suppose I now give the LNC half the limit minus another dollar. There is still no issue. The issue arises only when I give one of them $3. At that point, the one that is over half advises the other, the total is computed, the one receiving the notice advises the other that there is an overage, and the $1 overage is handled in accordance with law. However, until you go over half, there can be no issue.

  I am not particularly sorry that you are not smart enough to handle integer arithmetic, because it reminds readers that people afraid to sign their own names are mostly idiots.

• 50 Be Rational // Jan 9, 2013 at 11:10 am

  @49 My god, George, are you just plain stupid? Use my example. Read it. Think about it.

  single organization limit = a
  combined limit = b

  Where a < b 2a is logically impossible, and b < or = a would make it unwise to create a second group .)

  How much can you give to one organization before it affects the other? report level = r

  Answer: very simple:

  r = b – a

  Try it George. It works for every possible combination of donation regulatory amounts for two FEC regulated groups expressed as a positive dollar amount.

  Say the one org limit is $5 and the combined limit is $8. Then if you give more than $3 to either org, a maximum donation to the other could cause the donor to exceed the maximum. The formula:

  r = b – a (Not too hard for most of us) represents this outcome.

  Likewise in the above example:

  If the max is $25,000 to one org and $35,000 combined, then donations over $10,000 to one org could risk putting the donor over the limit – both organizations would be over the combined limit in the aggregate.

  Again: r = b – a

  It always works.

  It is too simple to have to explain. This is elementary school math level, and you have failed.

  Your claim that any donation over half of the reported amount should be reported to the other group only works in some circumstances.

  If you mean half of the combined maximum, that will never work. The only time that contributions of less than half of the combined maximum are guaranteed to be low enough so that a maximum contribution to the other group will not cause the combined total to exceed the combined maxium is where b = 2a, which means there is no effective combined limit.

  If you mean that the trigger amount for notification to the other group is half of the single group maximum, this only works when b = 1.5 a. However, unless we know that this is always true, then you are wrong. Since we only know that a < b < 2a , we must use the formula r = b – a.

  Back to school for you George. Your math level is not yet up to pre- Algebra.

• 51 Be Rational // Jan 9, 2013 at 11:16 am

  EDIT: “Where a < b 2a is logically impossible, and b < or = a would make it unwise to create a second group .)"

  Dont' know how part of this sentence disappeared.

  It should have read:

  Where a < b 2a is logically impossible, b = 2a has no effect, and b < or = a would make it unwise to create a second group .)

• 52 Be Rational // Jan 9, 2013 at 11:20 am

  It did it again. The computer doesn’t like this sentence.

  Where a < b 2a is logically impossible,
  b = 2a has no effect,
  and b < or = a would make it unwise to create a second group

• 53 Be Rational // Jan 9, 2013 at 11:25 am

  OK. I’ll try it without math symbols since the computer won’t print them.

  a must be less than b and
  b must be less than 2a

  Since b greater than 2a is logically impossible,
  b equal to 2a has no effect,
  and b less than or equal to a would make it unwise to create a second group.

• 54 Steve M // Jan 9, 2013 at 7:37 pm

  Given a combined limit of 35K if either org receives more then 17.5K raises a red flag to the other org then the donors can be warned that their donations to the other org are limited.

  for example:

  Person A gives 17.5K to 25K to org L1 so org L1 warns L2 and A that there is a legal limit for A.

  Example 2:

  Person A gives 17.5K to 25K to org L2 so org L2 warns L1 and A that there is a legal limit for A.

  Any donations less then 17.5K don’t need to be reported.

  But this has to be a 2 way communication between L1 and L2

• 55 Steve M // Jan 9, 2013 at 7:39 pm

  If L1 receives a donation less then 17.5K it is relying upon L2 to warn if L2 gets a donation larger then 17.5K.

• 56 Steve M // Jan 9, 2013 at 7:45 pm

  this could be split by agreement multiple ways.

  L1 could warn if it gets a donation larger then 10K thus L2 doesn’t have to warn at all. Because L2 is limited to 25K.

  This would only require 1 direction communication.

• 57 Be Rational // Jan 9, 2013 at 9:44 pm

  Steve M.

  You are putting both organizations at risk. Each must assume that the other is reporting accurately at all times – prior to depositing any checks.

  The solution is to rely on r = b – a

  In your example, this would be $10,000.

  In this case, either organization would insure that both it and the donor and the other organization remain in compliance by reporting to both the other organization and the donor that this donation level when added to a maximum donation to the other group would lead to a violation.

  This is the level of care that the organization should exercise to fulfill its fiduciary duty to its members.

  Neither group should be assuming that the other is doing its job as the 50% system would require.

  Both organizations should report to the other when the donation level has been reached that would, when added to a maximum donation to the other, put both organizations in jeopardy by exceeding the combined limit.

  This protects both groups individually.

  As long as either group has received donations less than r, they are fine. Once r is reached they should begin communicating.

• 58 George Phillies // Jan 9, 2013 at 10:05 pm

  I had suspected that Be Rational and his weird rule claims were a bit odd, just as his math was novel, so I went to the FEC site and checked.

  You can read the actual current rule here:

  http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml#how_much
  The actual rule is

  Contribution Limits

  An individual may give a maximum of:
  …
  $30,800 per calendar year to a national party committee. This limit applies separately to a party’s national committee, House campaign committee and Senate campaign committee.

  Note the word “separately”.

• 59 Be Rational // Jan 9, 2013 at 10:23 pm

  Actually, GP, it was Chuck Moulton @37 that made the original comment about a combined contribution limit. You responded @39 with your erronious math. I corrected you @41 and have explained why your math is wrong.

  In fact, my math accounted for the possibility that the case of being able to donate the full amount to both groups. It was your faulty rule that did not.

• 60 Be Rational // Jan 9, 2013 at 10:25 pm

  Edit: erroneous

• 61 Steve M // Jan 10, 2013 at 2:09 am

  @57 If you were rational….. you would note I am not putting anybody at risk. Organizations put themselves at risk by what ever strategy they use.

  Or as I have discussed with an attorney or two. Attorneys make poor businessmen because they are so adverse to risk that they never do anything.

  So, 2 organizations, that are separate but working together are at risk from the behavior of the other organization. There is no escaping that.

  Using your example:

  If a Donor makes a donation of 10,001 to L1 and fails to report it and then the donor makes a donation of $25,000 to the L2. Then the rules of the game have been violated and your math doesn’t help.

  Your math and mine assume that both L1 and L2 behave by the rules they agree too.

• 62 Steve M // Jan 10, 2013 at 2:15 am

  The only way to avoid the risk is too never accept a donation of greater then 10K. Because, if the other organization accepts a donation that break the 35K rule they would be doing so by breaking the 25K rule. Now if both organizations were to do this they would be limiting the total donations to 20K. 15K less then optimal.

  Its better for both organizations to solve the communication problem. And, include a clause in their agreement as to who pays if the agreement is violated.

• 63 Steve M // Jan 10, 2013 at 2:22 am

  yes I do spend a big chunk of my professional time making computer controlled systems talk to each other often with the goal of decreasing system cycle time without increasing system down time.

  Too all the above discussion we need to add noise, lost messages, reporting deadlines and so forth.. if the goal is to maximize donations while minimizing rule violation.

• 64 Be Rational // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:34 am

  @61 Don’t be silly. By having communicated about any donation beyond $10,001 to the other organization, the first organization would have fulfilled its obligation to the law. It would be the other organization that was out of compliance and subject to any sanctions or penalties.

  I am being perfectly rational here. I’ve offered a solution that allows either organization the chance to maximize fundraising under this scenario without risk from irresponsible or careless behavior from another organization that is completely beyond its control.

  Even if both operate well, it amounts to a double checking system to avoid mistakes. Only a fool would create a computer system that leaves a range of danger from 10,001 to 17,501 that can be avoided by inputing a change in one number.

  The organization following the r = b – a rule can then proceed to maximize its efforts independent of the other without fear of non-compliance by the other – the opposite of the case under your rule.

  Fortunately, assuming that the current limits are as posted by Phillies are correct, this scenario is not applicable, as there is no combined limit.

  A donor is presently able to donate the maximum to both groups – $30,800 – which means that our biggest problem is finding donors to max out.

  If we manage to find such donors, we should also consider creating an LNSC to add to the LNC and LNCC, increasing the combined maximum donation to LP political groups.

• 65 Steve M // Jan 10, 2013 at 3:18 pm

  @64 you missed the point.

  For this hypothetical game.

  You are assuming that L1 sent a message about a donation of $10,001.

  The risk is they might not. L2 could receive a legal donation of 25k and be unaware of the other donation.

  That they have to work together creates the risk. The only way to be risk safe is to only accept donations of 10K or less.

  Otherwise the other organization can put you in violation.

• 66 Paulie // Jan 10, 2013 at 3:38 pm

  The whole argument is a silly tangent.

  There are 15k + current LNC donors/members, plus all the ones that were members in the past and may or may not renew again, and iirc 8 (not 800 or 8000…8) LNCC members/donors.

  It seems pretty obvious which organization should be sending its donor data to which to ensure FEC compliance.

  If we are limiting that to only people who have over 10k in a year that would probably be even less than 8 people. And they were probably already LNC donors as well. But even if they weren’t, it would be trivial for the LNCC to share its donor list. So why would the LNC have to?

• 67 Be Rational // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm

  @56 No, you missed the point. By notifying the other organization of any donation over $10,000.0 either organization has essentially complied with the rules, so it could not be held accountable if the other organization did not.

  This is why programmers, need to be told what to program. You don’t understand logic or concepts of risk management, so you are unable to decide what a program should do, even if you know how to write it.

  So, the programmer would be required to use the correct formula: r = b – a and if he did not, and he chose to use the foolish 1/2 b notification point, then HE would be liable for all damages for any failure to comply between r and 1/2 b.

  In any case, it doesn’t matter: George Phillies has pointed out – hopefully correctly – both organizations, and a third if the LP decides to create the Libertarian National Senatorial Committee, can presently accept up to $30,800 annually per donor with NO combined limit.

• 68 paulie // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:10 pm

  We are talking about no more than, and almost certainly less than, eight people total who may have given to both organizations, much less over 10k per year.

  That in no ways explains or justifies giving over the entire LP donor list.

• 69 Be Rational // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm

  How about a bit more in depth info about the LNCC.

  How many members are there?
  If we can find out: Who are the members?
  Who can join?
  Who are the leaders or directors? Who is controlling this group?
  Who chooses the leaders or directors?
  How often? When is the next vote?
  When do you have to join by?
  What are the rules for choosing the leadership?

  What did the LNCC do in campaign 2012?

• 70 paulie // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:21 pm

  In case Evan doesn’t stop back by here, I hope you email him with the questions and let us know what answers you receive (or, after a few days, if you receive none).

• 71 Chuck Moulton // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:32 pm

  Paulie wrote (@66):

  The whole argument is a silly tangent.

  There are 15k + current LNC donors/members, plus all the ones that were members in the past and may or may not renew again, and iirc 8 (not 800 or 8000…8) LNCC members/donors.

  It seems pretty obvious which organization should be sending its donor data to which to ensure FEC compliance.

  Paulie wrote (@68):

  That in no ways explains or justifies giving over the entire LP donor list.

  Bingo.

• 72 paulie // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:42 pm

  To be fair you made that point first @37, but it seemed to have been lost in all the arguing over the arithmetic.

• 73 paulie // Jan 10, 2013 at 4:49 pm

  LSLA will have a phone conference on 1/13 (Sunday) to decide on when and where the annual conference, which among other things picks the LSLA’s leadership for the next year, will be.

• 74 paulie // Jan 10, 2013 at 5:00 pm

  It is actually more in the interests of bottom-up party governance for the LNCC to be directly accountable to Libertarian Party convention delegates, rather than to the LNC. So this all could yet work out for the best.

  But if it is the position of those on the LNCC that they are accountable to neither the delegates nor to the LNC, then we have a problem. In that case I think the term “rogue organization” would be completely warranted, and in fact I can think of a couple stronger terms that might also be warranted.

  As I understand it, the LNCC is not and legally can not be accountable to LNC delegates (I have however heard this disputed). As it stands, as far as I know the LNCC is only accountable to its own leadership. The LNC could stop data sharing, withdraw affiliation/recognition, or even sue to shut the LNCC down, but it can’t act as the LNCC’s parent organization.

  Hopefully that’s not your position. Yet the situation would still beg the age-old political question of who knew what when:

  • Was anyone involved in the project of creating the LNCC aware, prior to the committee being created, that (at least in their opinion, and possibly in point of fact) the LNCC would upon its creation become a completely independent group not subject to any LNC oversight?

  • If anyone was aware of this, was that fact properly disclosed to LNC members prior to their vote to create the LNCC?

  • If the FEC rules allegedly making the LNCC not subject to LNC oversight were (conveniently?) not discovered until after the fact, who discovered them and when, and what did that person do with the information? Was the LNC formally notified?

  In other words, did the LNC members who voted for this knowingly set up a situation where then-LNCC-chair Wayne Allyn Root and his hand-picked colleagues would have unrestricted access to the Libertarian Party’s mailing list and donor information without any LNC oversight? Or were they merely guilty of being duped into making an incredibly stupid decision?

  Root was not the original chair of the LNCC. It existed, and was largely dormant, for several years before that happened.

  Other than that: good questions, and I would love to know the answers.

• 75 George Phillies // Jan 10, 2013 at 6:23 pm

  The LNC and LNCC must be and are legally independent. Whether the LNC that created them understood anything, well, your mileage may vary. Independence does not mean that they cannot both be chosen by the delegates.

• 76 Steve M // Jan 11, 2013 at 9:20 am

  @67 your system only works if messages are sent when they are supposed to be sent and not lost. I take you have never written any code where two computers, or processes on the same computer have to communicate asynchronously.

  Because if you had you would understand how flawed your assumption is when it is being done y computers, let alone humans.

• 77 Be Rational // Jan 11, 2013 at 11:45 am

  @76 Again, you demonstrate why programmers are hired and TOLD what to write. You are clueless.

  The computers are not going to talk to each other. These are separate groups. Either one of both may not rely on computers for this particular operation, especially if one group is very small. At most you would be writing a program for a single group.

  The humans will have to take initiative.

  Under a system designed to serve a single group, which is what it must do since the other group is separate, that single goup needs to protect itself. To do so, it must notify the other group whenever such notification is required; in this case that means whenever there is a possiblity that the two groups combined could go over the limit. This must be done to benefit that single group, no matter what the other group does.

  So, the only way to protect themselves is to use r = b – a

  This allows them to remain legal no matter what the other independent group may or may not do. The other group many not even use a computer for its finances. If it has few donors – in this case 8 donors – why bother.

  Your inability to accept the fact that you are just wrong on this not only demonstrates that you are not qualified to decide what a computer program should do, you are also not qualified to be hired to create, write or install a program since you are too combatitve and unwilling to admit when you have many an error, mistake or when you are just plain wrong.

• 78 Googlenaut // Jan 11, 2013 at 2:44 pm

  http://www.lncc.org/2013-lncc-new-years-resolution/

  
  Assist state and county chairs in the recruitment and training of candidates

  Develop and host monthly Campaign 101 video webinars

  Start a 12 week intensive campaign leadership school

  Get all 135 currently elected Libertarians Reelected to office

  Support 25-50 candidates who are starting their 2014 campaigns NOW

  Work with state chairs to develop a localized Get Out The Vote (GOTV) plan

  Create a Precinct Captain training program for local activists and volunteers

  Recruit 500 volunteers to operate the LNCC Phonebank

  Recruit 2,500 volunteers to promote Libertarian candidates via social networks

  Do whatever it takes to at least double the number of elected Libertarians in 2014

• 79 Steve M // Jan 13, 2013 at 3:07 am

  @77 well then I am not only clueless but well payed and successful.

  You fail a rational test because you assume that there will be no failures in communication. Even the internet assumes failures and it thus imposes retries and multiple paths of communication.

  The reason your proposition fails is because you demand perfect communication between the two organizations.

  Have you never had an email that you were expecting end up in your trash?

  Have you never been waiting for an email that you expected to be sent but didn’t arrive?

  Has anyone ever gone on vacation and an email was late being sent?

  Any experienced communications engineer knows and tries to minimize communication failures.

  That you deny that such failures exist or that you can command that they should shows your total lack of competence.

  Please use your real full name so that if you submit a request for quotation from my company we can price your foolishness accordingly.

• 80 Steve M // Jan 13, 2013 at 3:43 am

  The point being Be irRational. That the moment, according to the rules of the hypothetical game, that an organization takes a payment larger then total allowed – organizational allowed they are at risk of a break down in communication, computer, human or carrier pigeon.

• 81 Be Rational // Jan 13, 2013 at 12:30 pm

  Wow. You are beyond obtuse.

  You see, it is your proposed solution to this imaginary problem that requires two way communication. Both organizations have to communicate and each one depends on the other to report at the .5 r point. Otherwise they could take illegal contributions below that point while the other was over.

  Using r = b – a allows one organization to be legal and safe no matter what the other does. It eliminates the risk to the organization using it.

  Since it is illegal for the two organizations to work together or coordinate their activities – thay cannot work together.

  It’s sad that you are so obtuse to see this.

  I hope that whoever hires you directs you well and oversees your work product since you are incompetent.

  r = b – a Allows for the single organization using it to notify the other – and no further communication is necessary for that organization to be legal.

  The other may have to communicate back to keep itself legal. So, to protect themselves, they too should use r = b – a and send notice whenever a donor exceeds r.

  Your system just fails. It requires two way communication at all times. It cannot be counted on to work at all except through an illegal level of cooperation.

• 82 Be Rational // Jan 13, 2013 at 12:37 pm

  correction: .5b above not .5r …

  You see, it is YOUR proposed solution to this imaginary problem that requires two way communication.

  Both organizations have to communicate and each one depends on the other to report at the .5b point. Otherwise they could take illegal contributions below that point while the other was over thus putting both over the limit. …

• 83 Steve M // Jan 14, 2013 at 11:48 pm

  yes to maximize the contributions under this hypothetical set of rules two way communication is required. This is the risk that is introduced that your equation solves no better the George’s equation.

  You have no need to worry about my abilities, well other then you daily rely upon devices that have been impacted by my contributions.

  Have fun… I am….

• 84 paulie // Jan 14, 2013 at 11:56 pm

  Two way communication is not required. The organization with the number of members that can be counted on your fingers can supply its list to the one with a 5-figure membership.

  If that doesn’t work, the two way communications should only be about donors who give over 10k/yr. There aren’t very many of those, to either organization, so that shouldn’t be a problem. 10k vs 17.5 k makes little difference here; either way we are talking about a tiny number of people.

  Giving over a 5-figure list of members rather than that tiny subset is not justified by this FEC rule.

• 85 Steve M // Jan 15, 2013 at 1:01 am

  “If that doesn’t work, the two way communications should only be about donors who give over 10k/yr. There aren’t very many of those, to either organization, so that shouldn’t be a problem. 10k vs 17.5 k makes little difference here; either way we are talking about a tiny number of people.”

  Yes, yes and yes under these hypothetical rules.

• 86 paulie // Jan 15, 2013 at 1:37 am

  Posted on LSLA list:

  All,

  I am pleased to announce that during last night’s Executive Board Conference Call, we selected Aurora, Colorado to host the 2013 LSLA Conference during the weekend of May 18-19, 2013. Many thanks to the team from Colorado for their gracious offer to allow us to “piggy back” on their state convention. I would also like to thank the leadership teams from Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina for their efforts as well.

  As details become finalized, I will share more about the agenda/itinerary.

  Most importantly, I hope to see you all in Aurora in May.

  Live Free,

  Brett C. Bittner

  Executive Director
  Libertarian Party of Georgia

  Chairman
  Libertarian State Leadership Alliance

  ---

  Minutes of Teleconference Call of Libertarian State Leadership Executive Board
  The conference call regular meeting of LSLA Executive Board came to order at 5:04 PM
  Pacific Time on January 13, 2012.
  Attendance:
  Chair Brett Bittner Y
  Vice Chair Patrick Dixon Y
  Secretary Aaron Starr Y
  Treasurer Shawn Levasseur N
  At-Large Jason Melehani Y
  Invited guests in attendance: None
  Mailing List Discussion
  Brett Bittner reached out to Wes Wagner to invite Mr. Wagner to join the list as a designee
  from Oregon. He declined and his response was forwarded to the LSLA email list.
  Brett Bittner proposed that we move the administration of the email list to the LSLA.org
  domain. There was no objection.
  At the next meeting we will consider a written policy for managing the email list.
  2013 LSLA Conference Discussion
  Georgia has confirmed April 6-7, which is the same weekend as California and Maryland’s
  conventions.
  North Carolina is committed to convening a meeting in June in the Charlotte area, but the
  specifics have not yet been determined.
  Pat Dixon moved that we have the next LSLA annual conference at the LP Colorado
  convention in Aurora during the weekend of May 18-19. Without objection, the motion
  was adopted.
  Set the next LSLA meeting date and time
  Without objection the next meeting was set for 27 January 2012 @ 2000 EST, 1700 PST.
  Approval of minutes and adjourning of meeting
  The minutes were approved without objection at 5:36 pm, whereupon the meeting
  adjourned.
  Aaron Starr, Secretary

Leave a Comment