Announce List and other Promotion

Hi Aubrey,

You asked me to promote our paid arguments at the Announce List etc. I did promote on Facebook last Thursday night, but only just now had a chance to post on the Announce List. However, as I say in the announcement, even if the money does not reach us in time to add more words to the arguments, we can still use the money to promote our position closer to elections.

Now, I have to get back to doing my work-work before I lose any of my clients! Thanks for volunteering to miss yet more hours of your work to file the paid arguments.

Marcy

Marcy,

  I haven't visited Facebook, but your posting to the Announce list mentions only two arguments. To which two are you referring? I would like the arguments I wrote (or edited versions, if necessary) to be considered as paid submissions.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

You guys are the best....

Mike

Hi Starchild,

I purposefully left the name of the propositions out of the promotion I just did because things seem a bit unsettled. However, there was sizable back and forth yesterday on this list regarding two propositions, the bonds and the legacy housing.

In spite of the back and forth on the two propositions, I have no problem with the LPSF filing more or different arguments tomorrow. The only thing that I have been consistently and vehemently opposed to is filing arguments, free or paid, under the name of a member of the LPSF (no matter who) and calling that an argument by the LPSF. In my view, such act detracts from the organization as a whole. I believe arguments should be signed as "Libertarian Party of San Francisco, " period.

But, that is only my point of view.

Marcy

Thanks, Marcy. How do you propose we decide which arguments to file as paid arguments? Should we just ask the donors which ones they want to fund, or should the officers vote, or we take a poll, or what?

  Not sure I follow you on the other part. If we file an argument that says Libertarian Party of San Francisco, than it does say that, and if we file one that does not say that, then it does not. But we can't prevent individuals from filing arguments on the grounds that because they are Libertarians someone might confuse their views with ours as an organization, nor can we control how the public perceives such arguments.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild

We have an extra bunch of bucks now. We can file the two of which we spoke yesterday for the $800 we had allocated. And we can file another one or two for another $800 in addition now that we have more funds. I propose $200 of the new funds be kept for promotion closer to elections under this scenario.

What I meant in my previous email is simple. If an argument is filed as an LPSF argument all that appears as the signature is Libertarian Party of San Francisco." No personal names. If an individual files an argument that he has written on his own, then all that appears at the bottom is the individual's name. No organization. Obviously in the case of paid arguments, the individual would pay for his own argument.

Again this is my proposal based on my views.

Marcy

   Thanks, Marcy. How do you propose we decide which arguments to file as paid arguments? Should we just ask the donors which ones they want to fund, or should the officers vote, or we take a poll, or what?

   Not sure I follow you on the other part. If we file an argument that says Libertarian Party of San Francisco, than it does say that, and if we file one that does not say that, then it does not. But we can't prevent individuals from filing arguments on the grounds that because they are Libertarians someone might confuse their views with ours as an organization, nor can we control how the public perceives such arguments.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

I see... I guess my feeling is that if the LPSF is willing to publicly put its name to something, individual names appearing alongside it isn't a problem. The argument itself is what it is, and remains unchanged.

  Hypothetically I suppose I might draw the line at some individuals -- I wouldn't necessarily want to see a known neo-Nazi's name alongside the LPSF's -- and I certainly could have reservations about the opportunity cost of adding signatories in some cases (as opposed to adding other verbiage to the argument), or the strategic wisdom of having certain signatories in other cases (e.g. individuals who'd make us look like we're in bed with the Republicans, etc.).

  But you seem to be going further than that. It sounds like you're saying we should never work in coalition with others on ballot measures, and that we should never give our own members, candidates, etc., the helpful publicity of allowing their names to appear as individuals on LPSF arguments. That to me is going too far, and harming our own interests out of no real necessity.

  Regarding the new money, that's great, maybe makes a decision easier. $800 is enough to run either of the arguments I wrote; all else being equal I'd be fine going with whichever one people prefer, but if we're running your argument against Prop. A then I think we should run the one I wrote against Prop. B rather than having two arguments against A.

Love & Liberty,
                               ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

If you like your Prop B, then go for it. I believe that is the one Aubrey had originally chosen for a paid argument on the premise that few people in this town will pay to oppose it, if anybody, so anything we/you file will have a better chance of standing out.

I don't fall for any of your arguments in favor of having an individual's name on a ballot argument along with the LPSF name. No point our arguing about it, though. We just disagree, that's all.

Marcy

Marcy,

  Since this is likely to come up again, I think it is worth discussing. I'm okay with just having the LPSF name on the arguments we submit tomorrow, since we're paying by the word. But if we had anyone running for office, or an offer from some other community member(s)/group(s) with whom we wanted to work in coalition or give a boost to be co-signers, I would feel differently.

  And if we were submitting a free argument, and had space remaining due to being under 300 words, I would support adding as many of our own names as would fit. I think seeing a list of names underneath an argument, as opposed to just one, tends to make it carry a bit more weight. And since many voters apparently vote on the basis of name recognition, it is advantageous for any candidate, or anyone who might run for office, or just any freedom activist who'd like to have a slightly higher level of visibility in the community for the extra boost that being known in a community can give your activities in general, to have their name listed.

  So I'd be interested to hear your specific arguments against including additional names. I know you said you think it "detracts from the organization", but you didn't explain how. Do you think the Declaration of Independence would have been a stronger document if it had just been signed "Second Continental Congress" instead of containing the signatures of dozens of individual delegates? I do not.

Love & Liberty,
                                ((( starchild )))

Hi All. I just checked emails starting about 7AM just planning to print out Marcy's revised, revised, revised A & J and saw all the added activity from yesterday afternoon on. I thought everything was all settled, and here we go again with a last minute commotion when I have to get to work. However, this is a good commotion with the large donation that just came in yesterday. So please help to decide what gets submitted this morning with the extra donation. In addition, Jawj sent me an email (she doesn't subscribe to the Activist List) that she feels very strongly about her F argument, and with the recent back and forth between Mayor Lee and Feinstein, who knows how this will turn out, plus she feels that F is very much a freedom issue. She is willing to pay up to $500 to submit an unedited version of her F argument, though she also mentioned $164 as the amount that would fit her budget better (no time for clarification now). I tried to get hold of Starchild to edit his B down so that perhaps we can submit F and B as well as Marcy's A and J. However, her argument is going to cost $644 as is (around 222 words) and Starchild's B is $784 (292 words) so we're now we're overbudget again.
Here's what I suggest on the spur of this last minute rush. Jawj's F will cost $644 and let's say Starchild can get his down to 250 words (would run $700). That makes $1,344. Less Jawj's $164 that makes $1,180. I agree with Marcy's sentiment to keep $200 of the new donation for advertising in October, but I can't think of any better advertising for us than the Voters Handbook, so I think we should use all of the $1,000 and now an additional $180 from the LPSF coffers to cover these 2 extra submissions. Even with the additional $180 outgoing, we should still have about $3,500 afterwards, so we won't be destitute, plus the extra coverage of being involved in 4 bad measures may bring fruit afterwards. Please advise your thoughts.
Thanks!Aubrey

So sorry you were confronted with this right before work. That is stressful. Agree with you that being in the voter handbook is the best publicity we can get.... So your plan sounds good to me.
Francoise

Aubrey and Starchild,

If you are not yet working on paring down arguments to fit the new budget, you can if you want to, use another 25 words. We just got another donation of $50. Otherwise, we could use the $50 to promote our positions closer to elections.

Marcy