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
Hi Aubrey,
Next time make your deadline earlier than 2:00 am on the day the arguments are due and you will fare a let better.
So far, I don't see any feedback, so I suggest acting now and asking for remedies or forgiveness later. Go with your suggestion as you stated below. I will have some pushback about Jawj later. My guess is you will have to pare down Starchil's yourself.
Marcy