Thanks, Rob. Marcy and I submitted 12 copies of our argument, and I
was told there were also 10 copies of arguments submitted by other
persons, so we have a slightly better than 50% chance of having one of
ours chosen. The lottery takes place at 2 p.m. -- cross your fingers!
Usually there is more time to finish filling out paperwork in the
office after noon while Elections Dept. staff are processing
submissions, but because this was a very slow election cycle, we were
not allowed the time to complete as many submissions as I'd hoped.
Apparently the other ballot measures for which opponent slots were
available only drew something like one argument each, and the room
which is normally packed around the deadline on these ballot argument
submission days was virtually empty while we were there. If we are not
selected as the official opponent, I hope some of you will join me in
pitching in so we can submit it as a paid argument.
Well, it seems the dice didn't go our way. The Elections Department
tells me that Howard Epstein (local GOP chair) was selected as the
Prop. B opponent. He got lucky, as I was told he'd only submitted two
arguments. The opponent on Prop. D is San Francisco Beautiful, and the
opponent on Prop. D is perennial Republican maverick ballot argument
filer Terrance Faulkner. Members of the Board of Supervisors used
their ability to preempt other opponents to take for themselves the
official opponent designations on the remaining measures.
The fee to publish as a paid argument is approximately $780 ($200,
plus $2 per word). I'll kick in the $80. Others? Perhaps the LPSF can
put some money from our treasury toward part of the balance?
Also, do we want to approach Howard Epstein about signing on to his
official 250-word rebuttal, if he is willing to add the LPSF as
signatories? Let's discuss.
If there are no objections, I'd like to post a message to lpsf-
announce with the ballot argument, seeking donations. Am I able to
post to that list? I can't recall. Also to the SF Libertarian Meetup
list.
How was Drinking Freely attended, by the way? I was planning to go on
Tuesday night, but had a client. I did run into some 9/11 Truthers
protesting at Powell and Market streets earlier in the day (apparently
they have a protest there on the 11th of every month, starting I think
around noon), and when I happened to mention the Thirsty Bear
gathering, was surprised when one of them whom I didn't recognize
identified it on his own as being a Libertarian Party Meetup, and said
he was interested. Word seems to be getting out!
Good try at getting the free argument. I say the dice were loaded. But
nothing we can do about that, other than keep track of how often we have
"bad luck," and use that to guide us in future years when deciding
whether applying for the free arguments is worth the effort. (If we
plan to do a paid one anyway, submitting it for the free one is worth
the effort, but the dozen permutations probably aren't, if it ends up
that it's not truly random chance that chooses the free argument.)
First, I'd rather not sign onto Epstein's. I tend to oppose signing
onto things by other political parties unless it's something unusual
where it lets us drive home the point that Libertarians aren't just
ultra-conservative Republicans. This one wouldn't advance that goal, IMHO.
As for our paid argument, if we can whittle down the text to 150 words,
I'm willing to chip in $50 of the $500 and will support LPSF putting
$250 toward it.
No objections to posting donations request to both lists. They're
moderated, but one of the officers will click Approve. If you don't see
it within a few hours of posting, ping me.
As for DF attendance, all I'm willing to do via email on a quasi-public
list is a *rolls eyes* and leave it at that. (Jeremy and I were doing a
lot of eye rolling that night.) Will be happy to dish the details
in-person. Long story short, if more LPSF regulars don't start showing
up to balance the discussion a bit, I'm going to stop organizing them.
My government conspiracy theory quota is now totally full for the rest
of the year. :-\
BTW, I'm out of town on Sep 8, when the next DF is scheduled. Anyone
willing to take over organizing that one? Basically just requires
printing out the table card from meetup.com, taking along some member
forms, but most importantly showing up by 7pm so newcomers don't think
they're the only one who showed up.
Thank you for all the work you did! I am also willing to chip in $50 for an LPSF paid argument. I also would not "vote" for going with Epstein or anyone else. Also, we could, as Rob suggests cut a few words, to decrease the $2 per word charge.
Thanks Marcy, Mike and Rob for your willingness to pitch in. With our
four contributions, and if the LPSF spent $250 as Rob suggested, then
we would only need to raise about $300 more to publish without making
any cuts. Pitching to various lists, that should be do-able.
I fully understand the reservations about signing onto Howard
Epstein's argument. As a general matter, I am interested in seeing the
LP do more to appeal the left and distinguish ourselves from
Republicans. Nor am I necessarily in favor of signing on; I would want
to make sure the proposed argument was acceptable from a libertarian
perspective, and one we were comfortable with.
Nevertheless, I think it would be unwise to automatically shun
cooperation with anyone whose agenda overlaps with ours and with whom
we might work on a single-issue basis (save perhaps neo-Nazis or
someone equally objectionable). If it matters to anyone, I also don't
know that the SF GOP would be listed as an organization; it might just
be Epstein (though presumably identified as GOP chair). Besides the
LP's reputation, there is also of course the fact that we want to
defeat the measure, and showing voters a broader range of opponents
would probably make a favorable outcome slightly more likely.
I know Rob said he would support the LPSF contributing $250. As you all know, as the resident bean counter, I would not. However, if the others in the ExCom "vote" to spend the $250, I will go along.
Okay, Starchild. Just lost the majority of the ExCom. Only way to get
LPSF funds approved at this point will be for the general membership to
vote at the Sep 12 meeting. When are paid arguments due again? Before
or after Sep 12? Should I add it to the agenda?
If the deadline is before Sep 12, or just in case it's after, but you
can't get a majority, I'd recommend starting now on whittling down the
language, as I don't think it will be very easy to raise $550. For
instance, just cutting "How many times will voters have to say NO before
this proposal dies the death it deserves?" down to "How many times will
voters have to say NO to this proposal?" saves us ten bucks and carries
all the same impact, IMHO.
It's a moot point as paid arguments have to be in noon august 17 and paid by check cash or money order at the time of submission including a true source of the funds statement.
This means all the parties submitting money for the paid argument must be listed as per the following.
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, the person submitting the ballot argument must disclose the names of the three contributors whose cumulative contributions are the largest contributions received by the committee during the six months immediately preceding submission of the ballot argument. (For information about who qualifies as a “recipient political committee,” please see below or contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at 415-252-3100 or the California Fair Political Practices Commission at866-ASK-FPPC.)
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Sorry, I'm a foreigner, so what does that paragraph mean? We have collected money from the LPSF membership in the past to print arguments. We can no longer?
I don't think a political party or chapter thereof constitutes a
"recipient political committee." I believe that rule is for temporary
organizations formed for campaign purposes, such as "San Franciscans
for Prop. A" which may have innocuous-sounding names and not be
readily identifiable with a particular interest, and that political
parties themselves constitute a "true source of funds" for SF voter
handbook purposes. Large donations to political parties are already
covered under separate FEC requirements, and I don't recall ever
seeing a voter handbook list the largest donors to a party in that
fashion.
Honestly, what made it moot was the due date before the next monthly meeting and not having a majority of officers willing to support it in lieu of a vote of the membership.
I think Starchild is probably right about LPSF not being a "recipient political committee," for future reference. If parties are included in the definition of "recipient political committee," then LPC would be that committee, as LPSF is not its own legal entity. Regardless, something we should research before the next time this issue comes up.