Ballot argument submission report

Mike,

  There's nothing stopping us from simply writing a check to submit a paid ballot argument. I imagine Jawg was just interested in saving some money.

      <<< Starchild >>>

What’s to stop us from publishing a paid statement? I believe they are about $800. I’m in for $100. Anyone else?

Mike Dernny

<image.tiff>

From:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf OfStarchild
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:54 AM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Jawg Greenwald
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Ballot argument submission report

Marcy,

  Of course we should continue to file arguments, but it would help for 

people to be more on top of the process in order to avoid unnecessary
setbacks. This is partly my fault, because I remember hearing something
about Supervisor Elsbernd taking the opposition on three arguments, but
I didn't hear which ones, and then in thinking about other aspects of
the process, got distracted and forgot to look into it in order to warn
people.

  Good for Jawg for taking the initiative to go out and get signatures\. 

I'm going to Oregon, or would try to help too. I would suggest lines of
moviegoers waiting to get into theaters as a good place to approach
people for signatures, especially on a Saturday night.

Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>

> Starchild,
>
> Yes, the priority rules for picking arguments is for the birds, but
> that should not keep us from putting in our two cents; if for no
> other reason, to get used to participating in the formal political
> process (which most of us in this group have not done much of). Jawj
> is talking about gathering signatures this weekend for a run at the
> paid arguments. I am willing to help. I would see such an effort as
> exposure for the LP, mainly. Jawj does not belong to this list, so if
> anything develops, I will post.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
> wrote:
>> Marcy,
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I also appreciate Jawg taking the time to
> write
>> something -- though sadly as it turned out, Jawg's and Phil's
>> submissions went for naught because Sean Elsbernd decided to
> oppose
>> those particular measures, and as a Supervisor, he gets first dibs
> on
>> being the official opponent. I've always thought this was a
> terrible
>> policy; as a matter of fact, I don't think Supervisors should be
>> allowed to put things directly on the ballot at all. Unlike the
> rest of
>> us, they already have the ability to pass laws and resolutions as
>> legislator, and if they think something ought to be passed, they
> should
>> pass it themselves in the usual legislative manner instead of
>> grandstanding to the public.
>>
>> As for me, I submitted 17 and 21 nearly identical copies of
> my
>> arguments against Propositions F and A respectively. Barbara
> Meskunas
>> submitted one copy of an argument for the Taxpayers Union, and
> another
>> single-copy argument was submitted by the Coleman Advocates for
>> Children and Youth. And in a stroke of extraordinarily bad luck,
>> Coleman won the lottery, which was held at 2pm. I had forgotten or
>> didn't realize that the deadline for opposing bond measures was
> 5pm, so
>> I hope to find out in another 10 minutes or so whether I will be
> the
>> official opponent of Proposition A. Again there are only IIRC two
> or
>> three other entries competing against my 21, so barring another
>> disastrous fluke of the odds, we should be represented on the
> ballot at
>> least once.
>>
>> I was glad to see the Pink Pistols secured the opposition
> slot against
>> Proposition H, the firearms ban. Their representative was present
> (I
>> forget his name), and I asked whether he would be willing to have
> the
>> Libertarian Party sign on to the rebuttal, and he responded very
>> positively. Log Cabin Republican Chris Bowman was also present and
>> promptly made a similar request on behalf of the GOP however,
> which
>> seemed to be received with equal favor.
>>
>> Yours in liberty,
>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>
>> P.S. - Sean Elsbernd is also reportedly working on legislation
> that
>> would end the practice of stacking the lottery, which would
> definitely
>> be a good move, so long as the proposal contains no hidden, nasty
>> surprises.
>>
>>> Thanks for once again making my day, Starchild! Shucks...go ahead
> and
>>> disagree with me! Now, seriously. First, I am grateful that Jawj
>>> took the time to do what she did do. Second, I do think shorter
>>> writing has more chance of getting read than longer ones.
>>>
>>> Third, we had a good time at the Department of Elections today.
>>> Jawj, Starchild, Phil, and I were there putting in our two cents
>>> worth (I did not write an argument, just helped Phil with his).
>>> Power to the People!!
>>>
>>> Marcy
>>>
>>> Marcy
>>>
>>> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Everyone knows how reluctant I am to disagree with Marcy on
>>>> anything... (just kidding!) 8) ... but I'm not so sure this is a
>>> good
>>>> idea to submit as it is. First of all, why so short, Jawg? You've
>>> got
>>>> 300 words to make an argument, but you've only used 123 (plus
> name
>>> and
>>>> title of course). Surely that space could be put to good use!
>>>>
>>>> Also, it's probably an unfortunate truth that if asked
>>> whether
>>>> government has become better and less corrupt because of the
>>> creation
>>>> of the Ethics Commission, most SF voters would answer with a
>>> resounding
>>>> "Yes!" So I would strongly suggest not making that particular
>>> point, as
>>>> much sense as it may make from a libertarian perspective.
>>>>
>>>> Your effort is certainly appreciated, but If this is all
>>> we've got, we
>>>> might be better off not making a bid to be the official opponent
>>> and
>>>> just submitting a short paid argument, because I expect that
> other
>>>> potential opponents have more specific and hard-hitting critiques
>>> of
>>>> Proposition C, and it would be a shame to deny the voters a
> chance
>>> to
>>>> hear them.
>>>>
>>>> Yours in liberty,
>>>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>>>
>>>>> Great argument from Jawj.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marcy
>>>>>
>>>>> From: J. E. D. Greenwald
>>>>> To: Marcy Berry
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:05 AM
>>>>> Subject: Proposition C opposition
>>>>>
>>>>> Who watches the watchdogs? Will we soon need an Ethics
>>> Commission for
>>>>> the Ethics Commission?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stripped of its window dressing, Proposition C is a measure to
>>> allow
>>>>> the Ethics Commission to set its own salaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is the true genius of government at work. To take
>>> laws aimed
>>>>> at producing open, honest government and turn them in an ethics
>>> racket
>>>>> providing well-paid jobs for the boys.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really think our government has become better and less
>>> corrupt
>>>>> in the years since the creation of the Ethics Commission? Or
>>> that a
>>>>> specialized bureaucracy is needed to police laws that would
>>> otherwise
>>>>> be enforced by the existing administrative and judicial
>>> system, with
>>>>> the help of a vigilant press and public?
>>>>>
>>>>> VOTE NO ON C.
>>>>>
>>>> <image.tiff>
>>>>>
>>>>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>>>>
>>>>> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>>>>>
>>>>> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>>>> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>
>>>>> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>>> Service.
>>>>>
>>>> <image.tiff>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

Update from Jawj (I wish she would subscribe to this list!!):

1. Cost is $200 publication fee, plus $2 per word; payable at time
of submission.

2. Jawj wants the Ex-Com to appropriate $1,000 from the LPSF
treasury. She is willing to gather some signatures. (I vote "NO" at
this time, since I have not heard from either Mike Acree or Phil
Berg; and Mike I believe is out of town thus no one to sign checks.
Also, there is still no guarantee that our paid argument will be
published. I am willing to change my vote if I see more interest in
this project).

3. Deadline is August 24.

I am adding a couple more points:

I do not know the repercussions of accepting donations for the
purpose of ballot arguments: what donor forms need to be filled out,
disclosures, etc., especially under new elections guidelines.

I agree with Starchild that more planning to avoid unecessary effort
is needed; however, I bet if I suggest a meeting in the future to
coordinate ballot arguments since time at regular meetings is
limited, I would get the usual response: "Let's not waste time
taking; let's do!" I am open to suggestions as to how we can plan
without talking as a group.

Marcy

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>
wrote:

Mike,

  There's nothing stopping us from simply writing a check to

submit a

paid ballot argument. I imagine Jawg was just interested in saving

some

money.

      <<< Starchild >>>

> What's to stop us from publishing a paid statement? I believe

they are

> about $800. I'm in for $100. Anyone else?
>
>
>
> Mike Dernny
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> From:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf OfStarchild
> Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 6:54 AM
> To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Jawg Greenwald
> Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Ballot argument submission report
>
>
>
> Marcy,
>
> Of course we should continue to file arguments, but it

would

> help for
> people to be more on top of the process in order to avoid

unnecessary

> setbacks. This is partly my fault, because I remember hearing
> something
> about Supervisor Elsbernd taking the opposition on three

arguments,

> but
> I didn't hear which ones, and then in thinking about other

aspects of

> the process, got distracted and forgot to look into it in order

to

> warn
> people.
>
> Good for Jawg for taking the initiative to go out and get
> signatures.
> I'm going to Oregon, or would try to help too. I would suggest

lines

> of
> moviegoers waiting to get into theaters as a good place to

approach

> people for signatures, especially on a Saturday night.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< Starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Starchild,
> >
> > Yes, the priority rules for picking arguments is for the birds,

but

> > that should not keep us from putting in our two cents; if for no
> > other reason, to get used to participating in the formal

political

> > process (which most of us in this group have not done much

of). Jawj

> > is talking about gathering signatures this weekend for a run at

the

> > paid arguments. I am willing to help. I would see such an

effort as

> > exposure for the LP, mainly. Jawj does not belong to this list,

so if

> > anything develops, I will post.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> >
> > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild

<sfdreamer@e...>

> > wrote:
> >> Marcy,
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong, I also appreciate Jawg taking the

time to

> > write
> >> something -- though sadly as it turned out, Jawg's and Phil's
> >> submissions went for naught because Sean Elsbernd decided to
> > oppose
> >> those particular measures, and as a Supervisor, he gets first

dibs

> > on
> >> being the official opponent. I've always thought this was a
> > terrible
> >> policy; as a matter of fact, I don't think Supervisors should

be

> >> allowed to put things directly on the ballot at all. Unlike the
> > rest of
> >> us, they already have the ability to pass laws and resolutions

as

> >> legislator, and if they think something ought to be passed,

they

> > should
> >> pass it themselves in the usual legislative manner instead of
> >> grandstanding to the public.
> >>
> >> As for me, I submitted 17 and 21 nearly identical copies

of

> > my
> >> arguments against Propositions F and A respectively. Barbara
> > Meskunas
> >> submitted one copy of an argument for the Taxpayers Union, and
> > another
> >> single-copy argument was submitted by the Coleman Advocates for
> >> Children and Youth. And in a stroke of extraordinarily bad

luck,

> >> Coleman won the lottery, which was held at 2pm. I had

forgotten or

> >> didn't realize that the deadline for opposing bond measures was
> > 5pm, so
> >> I hope to find out in another 10 minutes or so whether I will

be

> > the
> >> official opponent of Proposition A. Again there are only IIRC

two

> > or
> >> three other entries competing against my 21, so barring another
> >> disastrous fluke of the odds, we should be represented on the
> > ballot at
> >> least once.
> >>
> >> I was glad to see the Pink Pistols secured the opposition
> > slot against
> >> Proposition H, the firearms ban. Their representative was

present

> > (I
> >> forget his name), and I asked whether he would be willing to

have

> > the
> >> Libertarian Party sign on to the rebuttal, and he responded

very

> >> positively. Log Cabin Republican Chris Bowman was also present

and

> >> promptly made a similar request on behalf of the GOP however,
> > which
> >> seemed to be received with equal favor.
> >>
> >> Yours in liberty,
> >> <<< Starchild >>>
> >>
> >> P.S. - Sean Elsbernd is also reportedly working on legislation
> > that
> >> would end the practice of stacking the lottery, which would
> > definitely
> >> be a good move, so long as the proposal contains no hidden,

nasty

> >> surprises.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Thanks for once again making my day, Starchild! Shucks...go

ahead

> > and
> >>> disagree with me! Now, seriously. First, I am grateful that

Jawj

> >>> took the time to do what she did do. Second, I do think

shorter

> >>> writing has more chance of getting read than longer ones.
> >>>
> >>> Third, we had a good time at the Department of Elections

today.

> >>> Jawj, Starchild, Phil, and I were there putting in our two

cents

> >>> worth (I did not write an argument, just helped Phil with

his).

> >>> Power to the People!!
> >>>
> >>> Marcy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Marcy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild

<sfdreamer@e...>

> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Everyone knows how reluctant I am to disagree with

Marcy on

> >>>> anything... (just kidding!) 8) ... but I'm not so sure this

is a

> >>> good
> >>>> idea to submit as it is. First of all, why so short, Jawg?

You've

> >>> got
> >>>> 300 words to make an argument, but you've only used 123 (plus
> > name
> >>> and
> >>>> title of course). Surely that space could be put to good use!
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, it's probably an unfortunate truth that if asked
> >>> whether
> >>>> government has become better and less corrupt because of the
> >>> creation
> >>>> of the Ethics Commission, most SF voters would answer with a
> >>> resounding
> >>>> "Yes!" So I would strongly suggest not making that particular
> >>> point, as
> >>>> much sense as it may make from a libertarian perspective.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your effort is certainly appreciated, but If this is

all

> >>> we've got, we
> >>>> might be better off not making a bid to be the official

opponent

> >>> and
> >>>> just submitting a short paid argument, because I expect that
> > other
> >>>> potential opponents have more specific and hard-hitting

critiques

> >>> of
> >>>> Proposition C, and it would be a shame to deny the voters a
> > chance
> >>> to
> >>>> hear them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yours in liberty,
> >>>> <<< Starchild >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Great argument from Jawj.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Marcy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: J. E. D. Greenwald
> >>>>> To: Marcy Berry
> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:05 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Proposition C opposition
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Who watches the watchdogs? Will we soon need an Ethics
> >>> Commission for
> >>>>> the Ethics Commission?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stripped of its window dressing, Proposition C is a measure

to

> >>> allow
> >>>>> the Ethics Commission to set its own salaries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is the true genius of government at work. To take
> >>> laws aimed
> >>>>> at producing open, honest government and turn them in an

ethics

> >>> racket
> >>>>> providing well-paid jobs for the boys.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you really think our government has become better and

less

> >>> corrupt
> >>>>> in the years since the creation of the Ethics Commission?

Or

> >>> that a
> >>>>> specialized bureaucracy is needed to police laws that would
> >>> otherwise
> >>>>> be enforced by the existing administrative and judicial
> >>> system, with
> >>>>> the help of a vigilant press and public?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> VOTE NO ON C.
> >>>>>
> >>>> <image.tiff>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >>>>> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!

Terms

> of
> >>> Service.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> <image.tiff>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> + Visit your group "lpsf-activists" on the web.
>
> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>
>
<image.tiff>
>

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
<font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12hvdppgi/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705365370:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1124571104/A=2894321/R=0/SIG=11dvsfulr/*http://youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=1992
">Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!</a>.</font>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Hi all,

Note the following:
(from http://www.sfgov.org/site/election_index.asp?id=33775)

  If the source of the funds used for payment of the fee is a "recipient political committee" under the Political Reform Act, California Government Code Section 82013(a), . . .

  (For information about who qualifies as a "recipient political committee," please contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at 415-581-2300 or the California Fair Political Practices Commission at 866-275-3772.)

Looking here:
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=3

My reading is that if you stay under $1000 you can avoid most of this hassle.

You may want to create a committee for each proposition separately (e.g., "Libertarians Against the Gun Ban", "Libertarians against Measure xxx", and etc.), and then be sure to keep under the $1000 limit on each one. You still have to keep track of all donations, as you have to report the largest donors in any case.