I would be willing to contribute $50, if we can come to an concrete
paln.
1. We filed three arguments (Phil, Jawj, and Starchild). Which one
are we thinking of using as a paid argument? (All posted on this
and/or the Discussion List)
2. We have $250 in pledges, we need a lot more, depending on
which/how many arguments we want to file. Any other contributor?
3. At $0.50 per signature, you need 1,100 signatures by Tuesday to
cover the balance of cost of a 300-word argument (Phil's,
Starchild). Jawj's has about 128 words ($456 to file).
4. I have not heard from the rest of the ExCom regarding using LPSF
money as suggested by Jawj.
5. Quote from "Guide to submitting ballot arguments":
"To the extent possible, the DOE prints paid ballot arguments in the
VIP in the order in which the arguments are received. Submitting
paid ballot arguments ahead of the legal deadline is recommended."
So, no guarantee all paid arguments will be printed.
6. What we put as the submitting entity is important under the new
election guidelines. Submitting as an entity is complicated. Best
bet would be to submit as an individual (for example: Phil signed as
Phil Berg, Vice Chair, Libertarian Party of San Francisco).
7. Finally, I would volunteer to collect signatures, but will not go
by myself. If there is a volunteer out there that also wants
company, we can choose a spot and set a table (best I can offer).
Jawj will only go out if she sees a knowledgeable plan.
Marcy
Thanks Marcy,
And thank you Derek.
I'm pretty sure all paid arguments are published. All those I paid
for during the mayoral race were published in the handbook. All that
was required was that I submit the names of the three largest
contributors. It might be more complicated if one of the contributors
is a political party but someone would have to check. Just keeping is
names should be pretty simple but it would be nice to get the
Libertarian Party mentioned in there.
Jawj's compact writing reduces the cost to under $300. Any more
takers? We only need one more.
Mike Denny
From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D. Berry
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:52 AM
To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Re: Ballot argument submission reportUpdate 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 Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
<font face=arial size=-1><a href="http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12h3srp6i/M=362329.6886306.7839369.3040540/D=groups/S=1705365370:TM/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1124596219/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:
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos