It's Not Really About the $25, @LPNational

Yesterday morning, I received an email.

Subject line: "Your receipt from Libertarian National Committee."

Content summary: "CiviCRM every 1 year(s) USD25.00."

Went and checked: Yes, there was a debit card charge for $25 to the Libertarian National Committee.

Having authorized no such charge, I filed a support ticket with LPHQ, on the generous assumption that this was just some kind of data processing error.

Response:

Hi Thomas, 

I was able to cancel your yearly recurring membership for you, so you won't receive further charges in future billing cycles. 

If there is anything else you need help with, please let me know!

My reply:

[T]here was no recurring membership to cancel. I paid dues one time (after having manually renewed and/or been a monthly pledger for many years), and didn't authorize any recurring charges.

Haven't heard back.

I'd still like to believe that this was just an error.

But if it was just an error, the obvious response would have been a refund, or at least an offer of a refund.

It's not really about the $25. It's about taking the $25 without permission, and about treating/counting me as a "sustaining member" of an organization I don't want to associate with at the moment.*

Mistakes get corrected. If it's not corrected, it's just theft, and I'm definitely willing and able to deliver more than $25 worth of pain in the ass to the LNC over it.

Has anyone else out there noticed recent unauthorized debit/credit card charges from the LNC? If I'm the only one, then it looks like a mere mistake, just poorly handled. No biggie. If it's not a mere mistake, on the other hand ...

* My position for some time -- recently publicly reiterated -- has been that I won't go back to financially supporting the LNC until and unless they take steps to recover the funds embezzled by the former chair. If they do that, they'll probably get a monthly contribution, totaling considerably more than $25 a year, from me.

Post-Convention Note #4

A tweet from the Montana Libertarian Party:

The Montana Libertarian Party has officially rejected Chase Oliver as our presidential candidate.

We have maintained that we will always prioritize Montana first, and we do not believe his campaign advances our goals in this state.

Similarly situated states should follow our…

— Montana Libertarian Party (@Montana_LP) June 4, 2024

The Montana LP entered into an affiliate agreement with the Libertarian National Committee.

Per that affiliate agreement, the Montana LP received representation -- in the form of delegates of its choosing -- at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention.

Per that affiliate agreement, it is the obligation of the Montana LP to support the presidential ticket nominated at that convention.

If the Montana LP didn't want to abide by the results of the convention, it should have disaffiliated itself from the Libertarian National Committee instead of exercising its right to send voting delegates to the convention.

Since the Montana LP has decided to default on its obligations under the affiliate agreement, the LNC should rescind the mutual affiliation. In November. For now, it should go to court to enforce those obligations.

Endorsement: Re-Elect Nick Sarwark as Chair of the Libertarian National Committee

The 2016 Libertarian National Convention is less than three months away. Among items on the agenda will be election of new (or re-election of old) Libertarian National Committee members and officers.

I'm aware of three candidates for the position of chair: Current chair Nick Sarwark, Brett Pojunis of Nevada and Mark Rutherford of Indiana. I support re-electing Sarwark to the position. Here's why:

• With the LP, more so than the "major" parties, the chair is often called upon to be the party's public face, especially when we're not in the middle of a presidential campaign. The quality and quantity of the Libertarian Party's public communications has improved dramatically over the last two years with Nick as that face. More statements on burning public policy issues. Better and more interesting statements on burning public policy issues. More and better media interviews. He makes the LP look good.
• Since I first became involved with the Libertarian Party, I've noticed a lot of emphasis on the LNC, often manifesting more in the breach than in the observance, concerning something called "collegiality." That is, per Merriam-Webster, "the cooperative relationship of colleagues." My continuing impression of Nick (going back to long before his chairmanship) is that this is something he works very hard to cultivate and personify. When he disagrees with others (definitely including me sometimes), he goes out of his way to not be disagreeable about it, and to give all sides a fair hearing.
• On the other hand, he's no pushover. He stands up for what he believes without, so far as I can tell, attempting to subvert the rules or the process to get his way, unlike some other players in the Libertarian Party's internal dramas.

I consider Nick a friend, but that's not why I'm endorsing him for re-election. I'm endorsing him for re-election because his first election to the chairmanship was one of a couple of major factors that motivated me to get involved in the party again ... and because he has subsequently done the job in such a way as to convince me that that decision was not a mistake.

I'm not going to try to convince you that Nick has solved all of the Libertarian Party's problems. He hasn't, nor could he have been expected to. But he's definitely tried to be an active participant in finding those solutions, and I think he's succeeded.

Nor am I going to spill any ink in this letter of endorsement on what I perceive as deficiencies in the other candidates' cases for their election to the post. If that discussion has to take place, it can happen in blog or Facebook comments or whatever. I prefer to keep the endorsement itself entirely positive and entirely about the endorsed candidate.

Nick Sarwark deserves a second term as chair. Let's re-elect him.

Handicapping the LNC chair election

General Predictions:

- The final ballot will be Wayne Allyn Root vs. ???

- On all ballots prior to that final ballot, Root will place first among all contenders.

- If Root isn't within a short distance of a majority (40-45% minimum) on the first ballot, he won't win. He commands a plurality for first choice, but is hardly anyone's second or even third choice. For the most part, either you're for Root or you're for Anyone But Root (including None of the Above). As candidates are eliminated from the running, his gains will be small. He may even lose some votes as one or more of his remaining opponents start to look like viable choices instead of long shots.

- Of course, there's a chance that he'll manage a majority on the first ballot, which will make it the last ballot, too.

My guess is that either Root will win a surprise first-ballot majority, or that it it will go to four or more ballots, and that Myers will be eliminated on the first ballot and Hancock on the second.

First Ballot

Root: ~40%
Phillies: ~20%
Hancock: ~20%
Hinkle: ~12%
Myers: ~8%

Second Ballot

Root: ~41%
Phillies: ~21%
Hinkle: ~20%
Hancock: ~18%

Third Ballot

Root: ~44%
Phillies and Hinkle: ??%
NOTA: ~5%

What happens next depends on whether Hancock's non-NOTA voters go to Phillies or Hinkle. My guess is Phillies, but it's nothing like a sure thing.

If Hinkle manages to get it down to Hinkle v. Root, Hinkle will ride the "emerging consensus wave" all the way to a fourth-ballot majority.

If Phillies manages to get it down to Phillies v. Root, we may go several ballots with a stubborn NOTA vote keeping either from winning a majority. When that deadlock breaks, I don't think it will break to Root's benefit.

As always, take my predictions with a grain of salt. When I'm on, I'm usually dead on. When I'm not, I'm usually so far off it's silly.

Endorsement: George Phillies for LNC Chair

In endorsing George Phillies for chair of the Libertarian National Committee, I should probably first explain why I did not support his campaign for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination.

Ideologically speaking, George and I are very different creatures. I'm a radical libertarian. He's a moderate libertarian. We disagree in significant respects on important issues, and I believe the party's presidential candidate should be a bold standard-bearer for my take on most issues.

Furthermore, I viewed the party's nomination contest as a two-way race between its "right/conservative" faction (Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root) and its "left/libertarian" faction (Steve Kubby, Mary Ruwart and Mike Gravel) in which no significant "movement to the center" -- i.e., Phillies or Mike Jingozian -- was either likely or desirable.

So, for both ideological and tactical reasons, I just couldn't support George.

However, his presidential campaign was confirmatory evidence of the wisdom of supporting him for chair, as I did in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006, and as I do this year.

From a technical standpoint, George ran the best of the 2008 pre-nomination presidential campaigns -- and I say that as the manager of one of his opponents.

He produced and distributed real campaign literature.

He produced and aired well-made radio campaign ads. He produced television ads for airing in the general election campaign if he was nominated -- and not just for himself, but for other candidates to insert their own "paid for by" blurbs in, free of charge. He pushed those video ads over the Internet, and also served up nearly 3.6 million text ads through Google.

He conducted an active and well-crafted internal campaign of delegate contact, appearances at state conventions, etc.

With the New Hampshire Libertarian Party's nomination in hand, he did the work to get his name on the ballot.

George is a can-do kind of guy.

Throughout the entire time that I've known him -- more than a decade now -- he's been a doer, not just a talker.

When he concluded that the LP suffered from systemic problems in the manner in which it is organized, he didn't just complain. He conceived and fully explained (in Stand Up for Liberty) an alternative organizational strategy and went to work to implement it.

When he felt that the national LP was doing a poor job on ballot access, he didn't just complain. He founded a real PAC (Freedom Ballot Access) which raised and spent real money to put real third party candidates on real ballots (disclosure: I sit on the board of Freedom Ballot Access).

He's also been a mentor to numerous Libertarians, encouraging them to become involved in party work and helping them to do successful nuts and bolts politics.

I was one of those young Libertarians in 2000, when I worked with him on Don Gorman's presidential campaign and on his own first campaign for chair, and ran for LNC as part of his local-organization-oriented "Clean Slate."

I remain grateful to George for everything that I learned from him back then, and have learned from him since. I welcome the opportunity to work with him to this very day, and was thrilled to be able to assist in some voter database work for Joe Kennedy's US Senate campaign under his supervision in late 2009 and early 2010.

Finally, George is a partisan Libertarian who understands that the Libertarian Party is, and should be, "a libertarian political entity separate and distinct from all other political parties or movements."

This is something which should be a hard line that no candidate for chair dare cross. Instead, it's become a "gray zone" in which one of his opponents actively attempts to blur the distinction between libertarianism and conservativism, while anothers comes to the race directly from an active role in the most recent Republican presidential primary contests.

I'll be the last person to tell you that George Phillies is perfect. I've had significant ideological, political and personal disagreements with him in the past, and I expect that I will in the future as well.

For the office of chair, however, I'm looking for a candidate who will exercise fiscal and managerial prudence, address and mend the party's structural/organizational flaws, and put our party's feet on a path to success through practical politics and positive public engagement.

That man is George Phillies. I hope you'll join me in supporting his candidacy.

Brief LP notes

Wes Benedict is now in harness at the Watergate as the Libertarian Party's new national executive director. He was hired earlier this month and attended last weekend's LNC meeting en route from Texas to DC.

Comment: Very smart pick by LNC chair Bill Redpath. Wes is an incredibly competent "nuts and bolts" kind of guy. As the Texas LP's executive director he helped that state's party build an impressive fundraising and candidate recruitment machine. He's respected across the party's factional lines because he avoids diving into the 24/7/365 ideological disputes, preferring instead to concentrate on what he can do to build the party as an organization.

---

Mark Hinkle has announced his candidacy for chair of the Libertarian National Committee. The text of his announcement is available at Independent Political Report. Hinkle has served four terms on the LNC and was chair of the California LP for six years.

The party's 2008 vice-presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, has been quoted as publicly stating that he may seek the chairmanship if incumbent chair Bill Redpath chooses not to run for a third term.

Also rumored to be considering a run for chair is Jake Porter, publisher of Libertarian Strategy Monthly and an alternate to the LNC representing Region Six.

---

At last weekend's LNC meeting, Bylaws Committee chair (and Region Five North representative) Dan Karlan talked up the committee's Internet survey as a way for party members to weigh in on proposed changes.

Without commenting on the particulars of any of the proposals now in play (I'll do that some other time), I would like to compliment the committee on its relatively open and transparent mode of operation. Mr. Karlan informs me that this approach "is not perceived as an end in itself," but rather the committee is going with it because its members "believe it will maximize the chances for acceptance of the greatest number of the most important proposals."

I happen to be a "transparency for the sake of transparency" guy, but I'll take it any way I can get it, and would love to see more of it from other LP committees, up to and including the LNC itself. One benefit of this approach vis a vis the bylaws is that the party's membership has an opportunity to discuss and critique the proposals well in advance of the convention. Hopefully that will translate to more carefully crafted proposals and fast, fair up-or-down votes with a minimum of "on the spot" amendments and other time-consuming parliamentary stuff.

--
All photos by me -- this post was brought to you by my compulsion to justify the purchase of that camera phone and because Tamara won't let me post the ... candid ... pics I've been taking at home.

LNC meeting -- the pre-game show

David Nolan, generally regarded as the founder of the Libertarian Party, has issued an open letter directed to the Libertarian National Committee on the occasion of its meeting this weekend in St. Louis. Excerpt:

[T]he most important principle, for libertarians, is the principle of self-ownership, as set forth in the Preamble to our Platform, and our Statement of Principles. These are the standards by which every policy statement and every campaign must be judged. Anyone who is uncomfortable with this yardstick probably ought to be in another party -- one where "the most important principle is winning."

Read the whole thing at Nolan Chart.

That meeting will be webcast, Insha'Allah and the creek don't rise, at UStream. It starts at 8:30am Central on Saturday. I'm planning to pick up a new cell phone today. If I manage that, I'll probably tweet commentary from the meeting as well.

Apropos of not much, I'm hoping (but not optimistic) that my new tie will arrive today. It should go wonderfully with the linen suit/Panama hat ensemble I'm planning to wear to tomorrow's session of the aforementioned meeting. Since it's intended specifically for "branding" purposes (if it's well-received, I plan on buying additional ones in an assortment of colors), I didn't think twice about reporting it to my presidential campaign's treasurer as an in-kind contribution/expenditure ... apparently setting up (unbeknownst to me at that moment) a potential cage match with the FEC.

For me, the LNC thing kicks off at 7:30 tonight under the Arch with a free Sonic Youth concert. Hopefully some of the Libertarians coming to town for the meeting will join me for that (there's another free concert tomorrow night, same place -- Little Feat).

One (possible) step forward after two steps back

George Phillies, from an email message circulated in a number of Libertarian Party discussion fora:

There is a fundamental difference between politics, political differences settled by political means, and political warfare in which the objective is to destroy the other faction. ... It was utterly foolish of the gang of ten to move from politics to political warfare by hounding Angela [Keaton] from the LNC and preventing debate on the Wrights motion, but that's what they did. The cats are now out of the bag.

True as far as it goes, and if that's all there is to it we're very likely set for a second full year of complete dysfunction at the national party level pending the selection of new leadership at next year's national convention.

Hopefully, that's not all there is to it.

In my opinion, the "Gang of Ten" in question is not a monolithic conspiracy of ten Libertarian National Committee members pledged to a specific set of goals, but rather a set of two or three LNC "mini-factions" bound together by temporary and provisional alignments of perceived interest. If I'm right about that, it leaves open the possibility that members of one of those "mini-factions" might be persuaded to re-evaluate their interests and defect from their current pattern of behavior.

In that vein, I'd like to appeal to the interests of one of these hypothetical "mini-factions," which I will label the Decorum Caucus (I didn't make that name up -- I stole it). Here's the pitch:

Next year in St. Louis, the Libertarian Party will send its current chair, secretary and treasurer home to spend more time with their families. Also replaced will be all of those at-large members, and most or all of those regional representatives, whom the delegates perceive as generally aligned with those three officers.

I'm not going to argue the point of whether such a cutting of heads is justified or wise. That's not the point here. The point is that that's what's going to happen. Thermidor will come early next year, and its arrival won't be pretty. To quote George W. Bush, "you can write it down."

So, to those of you on the LNC who've been lining up with the Gang of Three-and-a-Half (cut camera briefly to Vanna White posing and pointing as the letter "M" is turned onto the board -- no need to buy any vowels) on the basis of decorum, propriety, going along to get along, etc. ...

... you've got a year to credibly dissociate yourselves from the Gang and all its works ... if you want to continue to exert influence on the party's direction and operation.

If I'm right -- if you've been voting for your notion of what best promotes collegiality and decorum, rather than for some esoteric Principle of Piss-Poor Party Governance -- there's no time like the present to take notice of the fact that the Gang of Three-and-a-Half's escapades stopped serving your interests some time ago, if indeed they ever did.

Angela Keaton's resignation was at best a Pyrrhic victory that left the LNC looking petty.

Your coalition got its head handed to it on the R. Lee Wrights fiasco (and that's by no means over -- the Treasurer's misbehavior in the affair is, I believe, on the agenda for discussion at this weekend's LNC meeting in St. Louis), leaving an identifiable majority of the LNC looking not just petty, but petty and vengeful.

The agenda for this weekend's meeting is packed full of opportunities to complete the visible transformation of the LNC from something resembling a political party's governing body to the equivalent of one of those herds of clowns who zip around piling in and out of little cars during circus intermissions. In considering how you'll comport yourselves vis a vis those agenda items, I hope you'll consider not only the foregoing appeal to a narrow interest in decorum, but this choice:

With your support, the Gang may be able to maintain its power of position for another year ... but there's only thing it seems likely to effectively use that power for, and that's to "scorch the earth" in hope of leaving a smoking ruin of a party behind them when they unwillingly depart from power. Or:

With your support, the current opposition can become a functional LNC majority. It's already got momentum which it will continue to build between now and the convention, but with your help, it can start rebuilding the party now.

Do the right thing(s).

Credit where credit is due

Earlier today, I sent a concise, polite note to several LNC members -- my regional's representative (Julie Fox), regional alternate (Jake Porter), and the at-large representatives (Dr. Mary Ruwart, R. Lee Wrights, Admiral Michael Colley, Pat Dixon and Angela Keaton), concerning the agenda item on "Discipline of Angela Keaton" scheduled for this weekend's LNC meeting.

As of only a few hours later, I've received email and/or phone responses -- all of them polite and positive -- from each of the aforementioned except for two. One of those two is Admiral Colley, whose email address I got wrong the first time and to whom I just re-sent the original message. The other is Ms. Keaton herself, with whom I often correspond, whom I have always found responsive, and whom I suspect correctly took the message as a "courtesy cc" since she's already well aware of my opinions on the issue in question.

Why mention it? Because I've seen a number of complaints over the years concerning non-responsiveness on the part of LNC members to party members' inquiries. If we're going to complain when they get it wrong (and we should!), we ought to also take similar notice when they get it right.

Haiku

Clamor at the door!
Raise or raze or praise the Barr?
Oh -- gridlock ethos