Nathan Polsky
Volunteer Staff
Does this exclude the Miller v Hughs case that is currently ongoing where we are partnered with the Green Party, Constitution Party and America's Party to fight ballot access requirements?
Request for time on August agenda - Resolution Against the Kennedy Victory Fund
- Thread starter Kyle Russell
- Start date
Anastasia Wilford
SLEC Member
That's why I specified "for any campaign purpose"
It could also be said that we work with other parties when we are pushing for and against different pieces of legislation, but those are different situations in my mind.
This partnership between National and RFK is, as I understand it, is a means for donors to RFK to be able to circumvent contribution limits, and campaign contributions are used for candidate promotion. Even if we aren't publishing him on our social media (though with this LNC, I imagine that will come soon enough), we are still party to his campaign's promotion.
For what? 10%? Is that the price of the integrity we've preached about having all this time, the thing we've said makes us more worthy of votes than the two old parties?
Last edited:
Jessi Cowart
Vice Chair
I'm gonna check myself before I respond to first ask a question: Are you saying that us partnering with other minor parties to fight unjust ballot access laws is in the same ballpark as entering into a fundraising agreement with a candidate of an opposing political party? Because if so, I'm going to need a stronger phrase than "apples to oranges."
AaronRamos
SLEC Member
Arguably that is just as bad if not worse, because he doesn't have a brand of his own he is cannibalizing ours.
RJ Pase
SLEC Member
Arguably you’re moving the goal posts.
And I was just pointing out a flaw in arguments above as y’all have done with my other posts.
I think I’ve expressed enough of my opinion on this topic so I shall refrain until we meet in a few days.
This is a discussion we needed to have though so I appreciate everyone’s input.
Rene Perez
SLEC Member
The Chair's residence is relevant. Local support is an indication of the popularity of support for their policies and behavior. "We can ignore objective reality, but we cannot avoid the consequences of ignoring objective reality."
If LPTexas has better ideas on how National should run, we are obligated to make those ideas public.
Here's an example:"What is the purpose of a political party?"
Who has the better answer? LPTexas, or our current National Chair?
ICYMI, the person(s) who thought they had the better idea is no longer defending those better ideas.
https://thirdpartywatch.com/2024/05/28/michael-heise-withdraws-from-politics/
Last edited:
Austen Hoogen
SLEC Member
Let me be more clear: I don't care.
I don't think National is important. I don't think national politics is constructive and my objective is to flip politics on its head. If Texas needs to have anything to say about how the LNC is being run, let it be this: The LNC is UNIMPORTANT. Go touch grass and call your county chair to see what you can do locally, and talk to people in your community.
I think perpetuating a National this or National that reinforces this idea that we need a federal government and that who represents us in Congress and the White House is more important than who your local county judges are, who is on your city council, and who is running your school boards. The LNC has ZERO relevance in the areas of politics which are--in my opinion--the only politics that matter. National politics is a total distraction.
Our politics is rigged from the bottom up, and we are NOT going to affect change by focusing on the top down. My goal is to get people to view national politics with disgust and to stop wasting our time and money trying to get people elected into positions that will have ZERO IMPACT.
I want to topple this whole damned corrupt system by eroding its foundation so that this house of cards comes tumbling down. We need to fix it in Everytown USA. Then in Everycounty USA. Then in Everystate USA. In that order.
Rene Perez
SLEC Member
You are right and wrong. And that is an over simplification of the process.
We need to make inroads at all levels. Prioritizing local 'improvement' is likely the best idea.
If we can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, "perhaps we don't have the best ideas?" Low information voters may think this.
Let's show them that we can.
Billy Pierce
SLEC Member
I echo this sentiment. Our county runs more candidates and holds more events than the LNC. I would caution however that while the LNC cannot do much to help the cause, they are (unfortunately) capable of doing considerable HARM to our cause. Restraining the LNC, or any other body or entity with the power to do that kind of harm IS important.
TL;DR I want the LNC to do Less, and State Affiliates to do More.
Mike Coogan
SLEC Member
Add that they appear to be disenfranchising regions, and it becomes a very difficult problem. Simple slogans aren’t going to get us out of this one. If, as the Chair predicts, National goes bankrupt in 6 weeks, it will hurt our ability to be relevant. If we can’t run a relatively small organization with competence, why should we have ANY power?
Mike Coogan
SLEC Member
To be fair to Heise, that was a caucus issue, not a party issue. The math no longer made sense for him and his family, and he did the right thing by supporting his family. It is really easy to see in the FEC filings. The latest news adding him to National weakens my first sentence, but overall, I think he played it well.
Anastasia Wilford
SLEC Member
As the decision has already been made by this body, unless someone intends to formally bring the motion up for reconsideration, can we please move the discussion about it to unofficial communications channels so we don't discourage members from paying attention to their forum notifications?