Request for time on August agenda - Resolution Against the Kennedy Victory Fund

a agree with Austen and RJs assessments. We have stuff to work on in Texas and this motion does nothing to change that. We can pass this or not pass it, more than likely National won't care and for sure it will make no difference. The best way to show that we are better is to out preform them. The more we squabble about national the less we do in Texas. I have done my best to just ignore what is happening at National and would encourage the rest of the state to focus on Texas and get Liberty moving here. This is all inside baseball stuff that no one outside of the insiders know or care about. Lets work to show them that what is most important is what is happening locally, not nationally
 
The reason for that list of people to censure is because they are the ones on the LNC Excom that voted in favor of the RFK Fund.
1722030201368.png



The former LNC Treasurer, Todd Hagopian filed an amicus brief with the judicial committee going into detail on how this action violates our bylaws and maybe even FEC issues. See attached pdf.
 

Attachments

Going a little off topic the whole "Lets focus on Texas" statement I keep hearing is just absurd. We need a strong, stable and sound National Party. Taking these actions like this resolution at least puts these people at National on notice and gives us a track record of opposing the actions they take that are against the will of the party. I know of many people here in Texas that are done even with LPTexas just due to the fact we are affiliated with the National LP, so us making these statements against their actions can help publicly distance ourselves from them.
 
It is a resolution, which accomplishes the same thing. We can resolve (and publicize) our strong disagreement with the National decision, and ask Paul to vote to censure various components of the LNC, but that is Paul’s decision, not the Party’s. Censure seems to be string in this context, and the list of individuals can be argued.
 
Mike Coogan said:
but that is Paul’s decision, not the Party’s. Censure seems to be string in this context, and the list of individuals can be argued.
Click to expand...
That is ALSO Paul's decision, but your statement that we don't have "jurisdiction" is just absurd. We hold supreme authority to issue statements on the actions of anyone we are associated with,and by being an affiliate of the national party, it is well within our rights to censure behavior that threatens the viability of our party in whatever form it comes.

The way you're using the word "jurisdiction" is deceptive when it's just the fact that you don't want LPTexas to take up this question. And at this point, it has been requested to be on the agenda, so unless it's not on the agenda that Andrew will be posting sometime in the next 6.5 hours, then the question will be taken up and it's just a matter of what we decide, so now is the time to argue the merits of whether or not the resolution and censure should be passed or not or how it should be amended.
 
Anastasia Wilford said:
That is ALSO Paul's decision, but your statement that we don't have "jurisdiction" is just absurd. We hold supreme authority to issue statements on the actions of anyone we are associated with,and by being an affiliate of the national party, it is well within our rights to censure behavior that threatens the viability of our party in whatever form it comes.

The way you're using the word "jurisdiction" is deceptive when it's just the fact that you don't want LPTexas to take up this question. And at this point, it has been requested to be on the agenda, so unless it's not on the agenda that Andrew will be posting sometime in the next 6.5 hours, then the question will be taken up and it's just a matter of what we decide, so now is the time to argue the merits of whether or not the resolution and censure should be passed or not or how it should be amended.
Click to expand...
Piggybacking here, I'm not taking a position on the motion, but I'd like to make a suggestion that I think follows directly from Anastasia's. Think of this (and any other motion we ever consider) not in binary terms of right and wrong, but as an exercise in consensus building. As Anastasia said, this is the time to hash this out as much as possible to save us time at the meeting, but my suggestion is to start looking less at 'whether it should be passed or not' and more at 'how it should be amended'. Somewhere in there I think there's a document most of the body could probably get behind.

(And I'll be posting that agenda here in a few minutes, and this resolution is definitely on it.)
 
I am fine removing the other 3 members other than the Chair from the censure if that helps get this passed. The Chair is the one that presented this action and lead it, so if any person deserves the censure if should be the Chair.
 
Kyle Russell said:
Going a little off topic the whole "Lets focus on Texas" statement I keep hearing is just absurd. We need a strong, stable and sound National Party. Taking these actions like this resolution at least puts these people at National on notice and gives us a track record of opposing the actions they take that are against the will of the party. I know of many people here in Texas that are done even with LPTexas just due to the fact we are affiliated with the National LP, so us making these statements against their actions can help publicly distance ourselves from them.
Click to expand...
While I agree with the sentiment on people who are done bc we are affiliated with national I strongly think our affiliate should set the tone. Yes I know it’s cheesy but it is a standard that we can set for other affiliates. We DO NEED to focus on TEXAS. We focus on OUR business and find candidates that are good and maintain OUR ballot access. There are leaders in this body who would rather focus all their efforts on what the LNC is doing instead of being “boots on the ground” in our state and counties. What tone does that set?
 
I have kept my thoughts out of national issues for a long time. Given what I have seen the national party do recently, I don’t think I can stand by any longer. I believe the national party has put libertarianism on the wayside and put other political parties or movements at the forefront.


Article 2, Sections 1, 2, 4

Article 14, Section 4

I am voting yes on censuring the full list of members proposed under violations of the above bylaws.

This is because they have violated:

Article 2 Section 1.

The LNC with this partnership appears to support the Kennedy/Shanahan campaign and or movement which is separate and is distinct from the Libertarian Party. This partnership would have the effect of mixing the Libertarian Party and movement in with the views and beliefs of the Kennedy/Shanahan campaign. The Kennedy Victory Fund webpage has reference to it (“Together, Kennedy Shanahan and the LNC are paving the way for a brighter, more inclusive future. Join us in making history!”) and it appears the LNC is working with another campaign and or movement other than the nominated Libertarian Oliver/Ter Maat campaign.



Article 2 Section 2.

The LNC with this partnership appears to support someone for election to public office other than a Libertarian. Additionally, the LNC should not be entering into any agreements with non-partisan committees. The Libertarian Party is not non-partisan. The Kennedy Victory Fund webpage has reference to it (“One of the most remarkable aspects of this committee is its nonpartisan nature, enabling state parties from various non-establishment groups, including the Libertarian committees, the Reform Party in Florida, and other independent parties, to unite and support Mr. Kennedy's historic challenge to the two-party system.”).



Article 2 Section 4.
The LNC through this partnership has sidestepped the will of the Libertarian Party National Convention delegates and appears to support a campaign other than the chosen Libertarian Party nominee. Through this partnership the LNC has chosen to not support the Libertarian National Convention’s nominee for political office, namely the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate. The Kennedy Victory Fund webpage has reference to it (“Together, Kennedy Shanahan and the LNC are paving the way for a brighter, more inclusive future. Join us in making history!”).



Article 14, Section 4

The LNC has refused to respect the vote of the Libertarian Party National Convention and provide full support for the party’s nominee given his campaign hasn’t strayed from the national platform. If this was false we wouldn’t be seeing “an unprecedented partnership with the Libertarian National Committee (LNC), revolutionizing the way you can support our campaign.” The campaign referenced is the non-libertarian Kennedy/Shanahan campaign. Nor would the language establishing the partnership say “Motion to authorize the LNC to enter into a joint fundraising agreement with the RFK, Jr. campaign.”


Source: https://kennedyvictoryfund.com
 
Last edited:
I want to talk a a bit about "set the tone"

Back in early May, when we first learned that Trump would be speaking in DC, there was a lot of conversation about whether LPTexas should make a statement re: the presumptive nominee of an opposing party being platformed at our national convention. In discussing with the Comms team, I stated the following:

...LPTexas is the 2nd largest affiliate in the country. We set the tone. We lead the charge. We don't put our heads in the sand.
Click to expand...

The next thing I know, we're selling Set the Tone t-shirts in our online store, which I thought was pretty cool :cool: Andrew even made a blog post about it. And while I love that it's become somewhat of a catchphrase for us (thanks to the hard work of Comms!), I feel like last line deserves more emphasis: We don't put our heads in the sand.

We are absolutely locked in on Texas. I am very excited for SLEC to hear all of the Officer and Staff reports next weekend and get a full appreciation for the breadth of work that has been undertaken in recent months. Our Staff (and other volunteers!) have shown initiative and approached the work with enthusiasm and grit. I suspect I'm not only speaking for myself when I say that I feel more motivated than I have in some time. I'm excited to see what we can accomplish.

That said, I am taken aback by the false dichotomy being put forth that suggests that if we weigh in on National shenanigans that we're not "focused on Texas." Or that we'd be somehow shirking our responsibilities by voicing our opposition to the LNC's repeated errors in judgment (and that's putting it as mildly and kindly as I possibly can).

Ladies and gentlemen, we are an executive committee. And while our primary focus will always be on Texas, it is folly to think that the LNC's actions do not reflect on us here in Texas and that we can afford to ignore what's going on at the national level. As an affiliate of the Libertarian Party, we have a shared responsibility in the future - indeed, the survival - of our party. And that's not hyperbole, folks.

In fact, I argue that the 2nd largest affiliate remaining silent in the face of bylaws violations and egregious mismanagement would be the real shirking of responsibility. Not just because other affiliates look to us for leadership, but because our members and donors expect a response and need to know that we are not on board that that BS.

So yes, let's absolutely set the tone -- just like we did with our statement on Trump. Because when I said "set the tone," I didn't mean that we turn a blind eye, sing kumbaya (not a jab at you, Amanda! ;)) and pretend that everything is fine. I support this resolution and hope we can workshop it so that we can pass it with overwhelming support next weekend.
 
But let’s call a spade a spade- one could argue this resolution is only being made for brownie points amongst some so they can say “look what we did.” I see a potential conflict of interest here.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, I can get on board with the first part and rebuke them for their strange “strategy” but still believe the censuring is a moot point for the reason I listed above.
 
Agree the “censure” is likely to be a sticking point. Pedantics aside, it accomplishes little more than simply expressing concern, and asking National to think it through.
 
Ryan RJ Pase said:
But let’s call a spade a spade- one could argue this resolution is only being made for brownie points amongst some so they can say “look what we did.” I see a potential conflict of interest here.
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, I can get on board with the first part and rebuke them for their strange “strategy” but still believe the censuring is a moot point for the reason I listed above.
Click to expand...
We can read into each other's motivations all we want, but I don't find that to be particularly productive. You've raised a point that the censure is a piece you don't support, and that's productive.

What else, guys? Are there other modifications we would/wouldn't entertain to get this to a place that everyone is comfortable with?
 
Jessi Cowart said:
I want to talk a a bit about "set the tone"

Back in early May, when we first learned that Trump would be speaking in DC, there was a lot of conversation about whether LPTexas should make a statement re: the presumptive nominee of an opposing party being platformed at our national convention. In discussing with the Comms team, I stated the following:



The next thing I know, we're selling Set the Tone t-shirts in our online store, which I thought was pretty cool :cool: Andrew even made a blog post about it. And while I love that it's become somewhat of a catchphrase for us (thanks to the hard work of Comms!), I feel like last line deserves more emphasis: We don't put our heads in the sand.

We are absolutely locked in on Texas. I am very excited for SLEC to hear all of the Officer and Staff reports next weekend and get a full appreciation for the breadth of work that has been undertaken in recent months. Our Staff (and other volunteers!) have shown initiative and approached the work with enthusiasm and grit. I suspect I'm not only speaking for myself when I say that I feel more motivated than I have in some time. I'm excited to see what we can accomplish.

That said, I am taken aback by the false dichotomy being put forth that suggests that if we weigh in on National shenanigans that we're not "focused on Texas." Or that we'd be somehow shirking our responsibilities by voicing our opposition to the LNC's repeated errors in judgment (and that's putting it as mildly and kindly as I possibly can).

Ladies and gentlemen, we are an executive committee. And while our primary focus will always be on Texas, it is folly to think that the LNC's actions do not reflect on us here in Texas and that we can afford to ignore what's going on at the national level. As an affiliate of the Libertarian Party, we have a shared responsibility in the future - indeed, the survival - of our party. And that's not hyperbole, folks.

In fact, I argue that the 2nd largest affiliate remaining silent in the face of bylaws violations and egregious mismanagement would be the real shirking of responsibility. Not just because other affiliates look to us for leadership, but because our members and donors expect a response and need to know that we are not on board that that BS.

So yes, let's absolutely set the tone -- just like we did with our statement on Trump. Because when I said "set the tone," I didn't mean that we turn a blind eye, sing kumbaya (not a jab at you, Amanda! ;)) and pretend that everything is fine. I support this resolution and hope we can workshop it so that we can pass it with overwhelming support next weekend.
Click to expand...
What is the practical effect of this resolution?

I think it is also a false dichotomy to say that the only choices are ignoring National and passing a resolution, especially if it doesn’t actually change anything.
 
It's genuinely comical that there's a fight over whether or not to include the word censure. The resolution is a censure in and of itself whether we use the scary little word or not.

It appears as if there's consensus from everyone speaking that we're fine censuring them as long as we don't say we're censuring them.

The only argument for using the word censure that I care about is so that the people on the LNC with their heads up their own asses don't get confused if they see our resolution.

But if we have to remove it to get it passed, so be it, but some of y'all really need to quit acting like censure is some sort of death sentence.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Miller said:
What is the practical effect of this resolution?

I think it is also a false dichotomy to say that the only choices are ignoring National and passing a resolution, especially if it doesn’t actually change anything.
Click to expand...
I don't think I said that, but your point is well taken :) Other options might include a statement or blog post (a la the Trump one), though I would hate to burden an already-busy Staff in crafting such a message when we already have one ready to workshop.

And to answer your question, I state again that the practical effect of this resolution is two-fold:

1) LPTexas is on the record in opposition of the Kennedy Victory Fund in the hope that other affiliates will follow our lead with similar resolutions/statements (and hope, though extremely unlikely, that the LNC will take heed)
2) More importantly, demonstrate to our own members and donors that we in Texas do not condone bylaws violations nor support entering into financial agreements with opposition candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top