Steve G.

LNC Financial Report leaked

In Libertarian, Libertarian Party-US, Libertarian Politics 2008, Politics on November 30, 2008 at 12:29 am

Though as always I will not reveal my source …. since everything which goes wrong on the LNC these days seems to be automatically blamed on Angela Keaton, I’d like to be very clear in saying that Ms. Keaton was not my source for this leaked document, nor to my knowledge did she have any part in it having been leaked.

lnc-financial-package-2008-10-31-version-2

  1. I don’t see why the Treasurer’s report or staff report should be confidential in the first place. It’s going to be included in the minutes and in the binders available to the audience at the LNC meeting. Why would it need to be “leaked”?

  2. ENM has leaked a document from Executive Session!

    We need a new agenda item: Public Paddling of ENM By Aaron Starr.

    I’m sure Mr. Carling can add that to the LNC agenda.

  3. Exactly, this should have been made available for public comment weeks ago.

    That it had to be leaked and only a few days before the meeting at which it will be acted on, is a poignant commentary on the state of transparency (or lack thereof) in the national LP.

  4. How do we know this was “confidential”? That somebody calls something a “leak” doesn’t mean it was being withheld. Did anybody ask Aaron for an advance copy and get turned down?

    I’m on the ExCom of the largest LP affiliate, and we’ve never gotten our financial numbers this far in advance of a meeting. Does this mean the LPCA is in a crisis of opacity? What LP affiliate’s executive committee publishes financials “weeks” before their meetings?

    Brandishing torches and pitchforks is so much more fun than doing a little thinking — e.g., about the content of the report.

  5. For the conspiracy minded, finding conspiracies under EVERY rock seems to be their raison d’etre, perhaps? Validation of the “fact” that everyone else is wrong and that the conspiracist is right? “I told you so” is something one hears early and often from those who have this mindset.

  6. I’m on the ExCom of the largest LP affiliate, and we’ve never gotten our financial numbers this far in advance of a meeting. Does this mean the LPCA is in a crisis of opacity?

    Nah, given its inaction on the Prop 8 thing, I’d say it’s suffering more from a crisis of incompetence.

    Which just goes to show that LP practices are NOT the standard by which to judge LP competence and/or professionalism. I’m on the board of two nonprofit organizations, and both of them have much better financial disclosure and better-kept books.

    Heck, I’ve seen lemonade stands with better-kept books than the ones linked in the article. Negative asset values? As in depreciation *beyond* the original book value? Ken Lay would blush in shame.

  7. Bob is absolutely right. Everyone who is concerned is a conspiracy theorist. We have no reason to be concerned about the LP’s financial viability (or even the validity of its accounting practices) judging from these documents.

    Black is white, up is down, etc.

  8. Did anybody ask Aaron for an advance copy and get turned down?

    Why do we have to ask? These people are supposed to be our representatives. I have to seek them out and find out what information they might have that members have a right to? Is that like an FOIA request?

    I will say I emailed Mr Starr at least twice over the last 2 months and neither time has he deigned to acknowledge receipt of my emails. On both occasions I sent a polite inquiry or comment. I am both a member of and a donor to the LP.

    On this note, I’m still waiting for the Secretary to post the agenda for the next meeting to lp.org, as required by the LNC Policy Manual. Maybe he plans to repeal this provision from the manual, too?

    Is my complaint invalid because I haven’t gone and personally hunted him down and forced him to do it? He doesn’t respond to legitimate inquiries either.

    Brandishing torches and pitchforks is so much more fun than doing a little thinking

    This is a little more like storming the Bastille than Frankenstein.

    For the conspiracy minded, finding conspiracies under EVERY rock seems to be their raison d’etre, perhaps?

    Red herring. You are the only one talking about conspiracies here.

  9. George, Aaron is too important to respond to constituent e-mails.

    He has planes to catch, big political deals to ink, and Libertarians to elect!

    Considering the millions of LP members, he cannot respond to every inquiry himself… oh hey, wait a minute…

    Let’s use a Holtzism here — next time you e-mail him, tell him you have serious charges against him that you’ll reveal at a later date, that he has to prove he didn’t do what you’re secretly accusing him of, and that might motivate him to reply to you with one of his snider replies.

    This entire thing is becoming tragicomic… nah, it’s downright pathetic.

    How activists and people in the real world are to sell such a party “organization” to voters is completely up in the air. But hey, I guess they’re so used to failure by this point that there’s no use succeeding, is there?

  10. Brian: When Mr. Starr found out the report had been shown to a non-LNC member, he wrote the following (I have removed a paragraph of a purely personal nature, as well as removed telephone numbers and reformatted the email so it won’t get picked up by spambots). This is why I said it was leaked.

    CONFIDENTIAL

    Regarding the timing of the budget, you typically want a budget to be based on the most currently available data. Because November’s financial statements will not be completed until after the December 6 meeting, I used information from October’s financial statements, which were recently compiled.

    As those of you on the committee last year will recall, the draft 2008 budget was first presented at the LNC meeting in Charleston. I am not actually required to present it sooner, but since individuals on the LNC have requested it, it was my desire to be reasonably accommodating.

    The policy manual only requires that I work with the Executive Director and the EC to formulate a budget. I am going beyond the requirements of the policy manual in order to satisfy the concerns mostly of individuals who did not have the benefit of observing the LNC meeting in Charleston, when we passed the 2008 budget. I am under no obligation to do this. I’m doing this because I want to.

    If the individual or individuals who forwarded my last confidential budget e-mail to a non-LNC member have the courage of their convictions and are willing to disclose to this committee that they had done so, perhaps then I would be willing to part with supporting work-papers to the remainder of the committee. But absent that, I have no intention of doing so. I don’t always learn from my mistakes the first time, but I have this time.

    Aaron Starr
    Treasurer
    Libertarian National Committee, Inc.
    (805) xxx-xxxx Home
    (805) xxx-xxxx Mobile
    starrcpa at pacbell dot net

    Apparently the only person who sees a conspiracy is Mr. Starr, and since he wrote the report then took his toys and went home because it was shown to someone outside the LNC, it is his belief which matters.

    Personally, I don’t see a conspiracy. We’re not talking state secrets here, we’re talking about a report to be distributed at a meeting being held this week, which affects every single dues-paying member of the LP. It shouldn’t be a big deal if it is released early, intentionally or not, but to Mr. Starr, obviously its release is a very big deal.

    Now, perhaps someone with an accounting background can interpret its contents for those of us without an accounting background.

  11. George, I simply asked what evidence exists that the report is “confidential”. It strikes me as “bad faith” to read into my simple question your hyperbolic exaggerations about FOIA and red herrings about agendas.🙂 As for the LNC being an unresponsive “Bastille”, I’m curious: have you been on the ramparts of your state or county LP “Bastille” before, or is all your LP experience in response-seeking instead of response-giving?

    ENM, thank you for actually answering my question. Your straightforward response is a wonderful contrast to the histrionics that my question elicited from others. Given that you apparently were withholding this explanation from Starr, perhaps next time you should call things like this a “selectively-reported leak”. 🙂

    Brian, I’m the one on the LPCA ExCom who made the motion that the LPCA give front-page branding to our Prop 8 opposition and use our email distribution list to assist in the No-on-8 campaign. My motion failed for lack of responses. Since the 5-man LPCA management team consists of two Outright members and two of their longtime allies, maybe you can find out from them via Outright channels why they dragged their feet on this front. I was very disappointed in them.

    Thanks for letting us know that the voters in the “real world” to whom the Outright tries to “sell” the LP are deluging you with questions about the timeliness of pre-meeting disclosure of LP financials. Solid market research like that is hard to come by.

  12. Hi, Brian H. I hadn’t planned to reveal that email, simply because it is quite embarrassing to Mr. Starr. My point was not to humiliate the man personally, or else I’d have put it in the body of the post.

    I posted it only because I saw that there was some confusion over whether the documents were actually leaked, or whether that was merely an assertion on my part. In other words, I posted his statement to defend myself against some possible interpretation that I had mislabeled the post in order to generate controversy where no genuine controversy appeared.

    My point in posting the report is not only that I think LP members have a right to see it, but also that I’d like to get some insight into what is in that report which he doesn’t want distributed, because his explanation simply doesn’t make sense to me. It also doesn’t make much sense to me that there are negative assets, and I’m hoping someone can explain how that can happen, and why it is an acceptable accounting practice.

    Other questions may arise once those with an accounting background review the documents, or perhaps someone will come along and explain to us that there is nothing at all questionable about anything in it. I honestly don’t know, because I am not an accountant and haven’t taken an accounting class since I was an undergrad in the early 80s. I have however sat on boards, and I haven’t seen a report prepared in that manner. Perhaps it is merely a difference in methodology, I don’t know.

    Also, another concern has arisen which apparently predates my time in the libertarian movement. In a private email, someone asserted that there were allegedly problems with Mr. Starr once “cooking the books” in the California LP. I do not know if that is true, but I consider the source reliable and honest based on my prior dealings with them (and no, that source is again not Angela Keaton, or anyone even in California, so as to not cast suspicion toward the innocent in a situation where Mr. Starr is apparently looking for Deep Throat). Perhaps someone here recalls something about that alleged situation.

    Last but certainly not least, it is my understanding that Mr. Starr was asked for a hard copy of the report by LNC members, and he refused.

    There are therefore many questions to which I do not have answers, but I am hoping those answers can be hashed out here, so we all can understand what’s going on in this situation, and why Mr. Starr is so upset that the document was revealed a week before the meeting, when it would then become public knowledge anyway.

  13. I don’t see what’s supposed to be embarrassing to Starr in his email. His points about going beyond past practice and the policy manual seem to be quite exculpatory.

    I’ve been active the in LPCA for years, and have an archive of our ExCom minutes going back into the 70s. I’ve never heard of any allegations that Starr cooked our books. And in case you’re wondering, the person who has most deeply and critically questioned the financial picture that Aaron bequeathed to us has been … me. My conclusion was that we couldn’t afford what Aaron’s administration was paying Angela as Executive Director, and that the economics of Operation Breakthrough no longer made sense.

  14. I must respectfully disagree with regard to whether Mr. Starr’s email was embarrassing, Brian. He took his toys and went home like a petulant child. That is embarrassing behavior from an adult male, in my opinion, and I am sure others would agree. Either way, my point remains that I did not include it in the post because I did not wish to cause him embarrassment by doing so.

    Thank you for clearing up the allegation about the LPCA books. Perhaps my source was merely mistaken.

    Please enlighten me as to “Operation Breakthrough”. Perhaps it has merely escaped my memory, but I don’t recall hearing about that before.

  15. Let us say that if I were developing a budget for the party, and I lumped almost everything into “administrative”, “compensation”, and “ballot access”, I too would not want people to see it, at least until I was safely off the committee.

    In addition, if one creates a budget line for an item, one either places the elements corresponding to that element in the line.

    I call readers attention to “litigation”, which one might in accord with normal English to be the line item for litigation, which one has chosen to break out. Readers may confirm from the LNC filings for September that the party actually has very large expenses for litigation in that month. Presumably they are under “ballot access”.

    “you typically want a budget to be based on the most currently available data.”

    Readers will recall that 2008 was a Presidential election year, and 2009 is *not* a Presidential election year. Basing the 2009 budget on 2008 spending does not make sense.

    Readers should probably assume that Mr Holtz’s comment “I simply asked what evidence exists that the report is “confidential”. It strikes me as “bad faith” to read into my simple question…” was written after ELfninosmom posted her proof that the report was indeed viewed as being in some sense confidential, given the visible time stamps.

  16. My apologies. In comment #1 above I reasoned that the document shouldn’t be properly characterized as a “leak” because any LP member should have access to the document just as any LP member should have access to any non-confidential LP document by requesting it from their LNC Regional Representative. Apparently the Treasurer does see it as a “leak” and a confidential document though.

    If LP members are not to be privy to budget documents until the LNC meeting or possibly even afterward (in the meeting minutes) and if in the future even LNC members who are not EC members won’t see the budget until the meeting itself, obviously they will be less able to intelligently participate in a budget discussion.

    The Treasurer is under no obligation to prepare a budget weeks in advance; however, if he chooses to do so, withholding it until the last minute seems like bad form to me.

    I fail to see a downside to being open with documents like a budget. There are trade offs to transparency in legal matters, but I would like to hear the case against transparency for party finances (given that the marginal cost of releasing an already prepared document seems to be zero).

  17. It strikes me as “bad faith” to read into my simple question your hyperbolic exaggerations about FOIA and red herrings about agendas.

    I did not read those things into your comment.

    Read into: Find an additional hidden or unintended meaning in something that is said or written

    I speculated on the implications of your comment.

    bad faith: lack of honesty

    Additionally, I did not display any dishonesty.

    There is no hyperbole in my comment.

    The red herring comment was not in response to anything you wrote.

    is all your LP experience in response-seeking instead of response-giving

    That is correct.

  18. Brian M.: Negative asset values? As in depreciation *beyond* the original book value? Ken Lay would blush in shame.

    Me: Hmm, looks to me like the net assets are $143,505. You may be mistaking the run rate operating deficit reflected on the balance sheet, which is appropriate and GAAP, as I recall. It’s a line item under Net Assets, not Net Assets.

    Ken Lay (or Enron, really, more Skilling’s doing) was manipulating revenue recognition, so your comparison seems off base. Is that your accusation? Are you sure you understand financial statements?

  19. The following was written by Brian Miller, and is being posted here with his kind permission

    The biggest question in my mind is how asset values could go negative, as we see in a couple of the entries.

    In real accounting, an asset has a book value. When the asset is procured, it’s assigned a value based on the purchase price or the market price. Any excess price paid typically goes into a “goodwill” account.

    Then, over time, both are depreciated by a pre-set amount as an expense until the asset (and goodwill) are both reduced to zero. Those assets are referred to as “fully depreciated.”

    Under no circumstances are asset classes supposed to have “negative” value, since that would mean depreciation reduced the asset to less than zero — a legal and accounting impossibility.

    There was also a bizarre situation in another set of leaked financials that showed accounts receivable staying at the same ~140K level for over a year — another accounting improbability (if not impossibility). Accounts receivable are short-term receivables for goods or services rendered and are not supposed to live on the books for longer than 90 days. If ARs go over 90 days, the standard procedure is to write them off as bad or uncollectable debt (and take a charge against revenues to reverse the accrual). If the amount in question is the same debt, it should have been discharged as uncollectible within 90 days — or categorized as long-term receivables if the individual(s) in question were paying off the debt over time.

    In short, this budget would not survive even a cursory audit at my privately-held employer. These financials are worse than useless, since rather than accurately reflecting the financial condition of the LNC, they raise more questions than they answer. That’s the classic definition of “bad accounting.”

    Sad part is, apparently the rank and file don’t know (or care) enough to do something about it.😦

    Cheers,

    Brian

  20. Robert Capozzi wrote, “It’s a line item under Net Assets, not Net Assets.”

    Okay, now I’m really confused. Is that just a typo, or am I completely missing something?

  21. All I can say is that I’ve made lots of mistakes in my life, but only once in my life has someone dragged me out of a meeting to yell at me eye-ball to eye-ball about it… And yeah, it was Starr that yelled at me. But I can’t honestly say whether he was yelling at me because I made a mistake, or whether he was just trying to intimidate me (I was not going along with the By-Laws Committee request to the Platform Committee to rubber stamp the whole unlock the back door and throw away the key scheme). All I know is that I walked out of the meeting shortly thereafter. I can only hope no one else has ever had an experience anything like that with him, it was terrible…

  22. ENM, Operation Breakthrough is a very long story that is now ancient history, and I don’t have time to go into it.

  23. Chuck Moulton wrote:

    I fail to see a downside to being open with documents like a budget. There are trade offs to transparency in legal matters, but I would like to hear the case against transparency for party finances (given that the marginal cost of releasing an already prepared document seems to be zero).

    I now understand possible downsides to being open with the budget. I was wrong.

    I’ll debate this topic more after the LNC meeting is over.

  24. I don’t have time to go into it

    Oh that piqued my interest.

    I now understand possible downsides to being open with the budget. I was wrong.

    Uh oh, they got to Chuck. ;P

  25. Readers will recall that 2008 was a Presidential election year, and 2009 is *not* a Presidential election year. Basing the 2009 budget on 2008 spending does not make sense.

    Please tell me you’re kidding, George Phillies.

    “Basing the 2009 budget on 2008 spending does not make sense.”

    I have to keep re-reading that and make sure I’m correct in my years spent pouring over budget documents of cities/counties/school districts I cover, because if memory serves me correctly, budgets are built on projections built upon by the previous year’s budget.

    Maybe that’s just more public administration, but if someone could clarify this ignorant statement, that would be fantastic.

    If I spent $50,000 on fuel costs last year, knowing a volatile economy, I would factor in $60,000 or at most, $65,000 in fuel costs for this year (declining prices-via-news-reports is/was unforseen). That’s based off the spending I did previously.

    How does that not make sense?

    You don’t think 2009 will post problems with litigation? After payroll, I would think litigation would be a huge part of an organization’s budget. Appeals, hearings and other factors must be considered, and appeals aren’t cheap.

    So educated, yet so ignorant it seems like.

  26. @jdauben in ’08 there was a presidential campaign. In ’09 there will not be. That alone suggests that the ’09 budget will be different/less.

    I’m sure that the ’08 budget will be of considerable use in preparing the ’09 budget, but neither is it appropriate to add 5% to the ’08 numbers and call it a day.

  27. “budgets are built on projections built upon by the previous year’s budget. ”

    In this case, only if they’re produced by complete idiots.

    LNC income consistently drops a lot the year after an election.

    Also, this year, the LNC spend huge amounts of money on ballot access for its Presidential candidate. How do you propose to do that, there being, like, no Presidential ballot to access in 2009?

    Incidentally, most of those lawsuits are over and done with.

    Using the 2000 budget for 2001 would have been even dumber In 2000 the LNC spent large amounts of money advertising its Presidential candidate. Doing that in 2001 would be, well, dumb.

  28. George, saying that a budget uses the latest available data is not the same thing as saying that the 2009 budget should be a cut and paste of 2008 actuals. The total expenses in the proposed 2009 budget are in fact 40% lower than YTD 2008 expenses, and projected revenue is in fact 20% lower than YTD 2008 revenue. Instead of making wild inferences from the simple statement that the budget uses the latest data, why not just look at the proposed budget numbers?

  29. ENM and Brian M.

    The negative numbers you see on the balance sheet are providing transparency and granularity. For ex., look at the Property and Equipment line. It shows the Gross Assets. Then it shows the depreciation. Then it shows the net of the 2, called Net Property and Equipment.
    Net Property and Equipment is positive.

    Net Assets are positive, too. It shows net assets, restricted net assets, other adjustments, and then current surplus. (I’d present that as “Current Surplus/(Deficit)”.

    Understand?

  30. >ENM has leaked a document from Executive Session!

    We need a new agenda item: Public Paddling of ENM By Aaron Starr.

    I’m sure Mr. Carling can add that to the LNC agenda.<

    I think Starr and Carling should paddle each other.

    (Starr would like that. Don’t ask me how I know)

  31. Brian

    In reading my comment to which you responded, the fact that the line “budgets are built on projections built upon by the previous year’s budget. ” is enclosed in quotation marks means that it is a “quotation”, something that SOMEONE ELSE SAID.

    That someone else is Joey Dauben, two entries up, who is making precisely the claim about which you said “Instead of making wild inferences from the simple statement that the budget uses the latest data”.

    Let me suggest you try reading the thread before making comments that tend to suggest that you are a troll. I know this will be challenging. Keep at it. Your lip muscles will grow stronger with practice.

    Phillies

  32. George, you quoted Dauben approvingly, and then said: “In this case, only if they’re produced by complete idiots.” You proceeded to sarcastically explain how the 2008 budget shouldn’t be simply projected forward into 2009 with your oh-so-non-troll-like revelation that there is no presidential election in 2009.

    Instead of taken Dauben’s fact-free quote as carte blanche to talk about “idiots” who don’t know there’s no POTUS election in 2009, you could have just looked at the numbers to see if Dauben’s quote had any connection to mathematical reality. Like I did.

  33. RE: “since everything which goes wrong on the LNC these days seems to be automatically blamed on Angela Keaton, I’d like to be very clear in saying that Ms. Keaton was not my source for this leaked document”

    Q: Who said Angela was responsible for this?

    I find it plausible that she was since she is the only member of the LNC you named in particular as a possible suspect.

    Q: What does Angela have to say about this and her impending “punishment” herself? You’ve been very quiet you naughty little girl and the audience will be waiting in SD on pins and needles to see if you get to pull down your panties for a little spankin from uncle M or uncle Aaron!

    Angela has never been shy about leaking stuff from the LNC and admitting to it — therefor one might suspect she is not really the leak. However one might also suspect she is posting (posing) as ElfNinosMom?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  34. NABF, I got the document too, and not from The Keaton. She is not the source of this, as afar as I know. She is not posing as ENM either–that’s just silly nonsense. She’s also been quiet publicly on this because she’s been working her job, which is fundraising for AntiWar.com. (Please donate today, they’ve almost made their quarterly goal and want to start next quarter’s goal!)

    I know where I got it from, but I don’t know where my source got it from, so I won’t speculate on that.

    And we’ll ignore the juvenile sarcasm.

  35. NotABarrFan: I mentioned Angela because of the nature of the allegations against her by the Barr campaign, which were the subject of the ExSess in question, as well as the allegations about her leaking information from ExSess. Given her current problems, I didn’t want her to be under suspicion for something she didn’t do. Try to keep up, will you?

    No, she absolutely was not my source. I could say that under oath, or while attached to a lie detector. I absolutely did not get that document from Angela Keaton.

    No, I’m not Angela Keaton. Far from it, in fact. We have never even met. It wasn’t too long ago that someone pondered on another site whether I was Michelle Shinghal. I’m not Miche either, for the record, nor have I met her. I’m ENM, and only ENM. It’s my real nickname, so it’s not just a pseudonym made up for the internet either.

    There are photos of my son and husband on LFV. Angela has no children, and Miche has no sons. There are photos readily available of all three husbands, so you can clearly see that my husband is not their husband. The three men don’t even slightly resemble one another.

    What I find interesting is that some males seem to think that there can’t be multiple strong-minded females in the libertarian movement, so they make the assumption that we must all be the same person. How lame.

    It is amusing that you would make that particular leap of logic, though, so I do thank you for the laughs.

  36. Holtz wroteth: “George, you quoted Dauben approvingly, ”

    News that someone thought my quote of Dauben was ‘approving’, when I promptly explained why I believed his analysis to be in error, tends to suggest there are more idiots around here than I thought.

    Incidentally, I usually do take Mr. Dauben’s comments seriously and as being worth reading, even when I do not agree with them, which I concede is fairly often.

  37. George, you’re being just a little too elliptical to be understood by someone who was enough of an “idiot” to publicly support your recent campaign on the first ballot on all three days he could vote for you.🙂

    Your first comment in this thread was clearly critical of Starr’s budget. In that comment you quoted his email saying “you typically want a budget to be based on the most currently available data.” You then replied sarcastically: “Readers will recall that 2008 was a Presidential election year, and 2009 is *not* a Presidential election year. Basing the 2009 budget on 2008 spending does not make sense.” Thus you clearly — and incorrectly — inferred from Starr’s innocuous comment about data freshness that he was “basing the 2009 budget on 2008 spending”.

    When I said you quoted Dauben approvingly, I meant that you were agreeing with his inference (from your own statement) that Starr is in fact basing the 2009 budget on 2008 spending. I then quoted you saying that for Starr to do so is idiotic, so I obviously was not saying you approved of Dauben’s defense of Starr’s alleged budgeting practice.

    The fact remains that the 2009 budget is NOT simply a forward projection of 2008 spending, and “readers will note” that you haven’t tried to defend your suggestion that it is.

    OK, time for you to call one of your public supporters an “idiot” again.

  38. Consider instead what a draft budget for grownups interested in making things happen might look like:

    Having spent some time looking at your draft budget, let me suggest that it does not look very sensible, and does not actually bind the party to move in any particular direction.

    The National Director and the Political Director are treated as overhead expenses and charged to all these items as an overhead %age, likely something around 10-13%.
    That assumes you have a Political Director who is in the main office supervising the political aspects of what you are doing.

    I remind you that every month the FEC reports exactly how much you paid every employee, to the penny, so comments about staff privacy as to their salaries are spurious.

    As a first cut, I propose

    Estimated income, 2009 1.2 million dollars. I think this is potentially high

    Estimated average dues-paying membership, 2009 15,000

    Costs:
    Rent and Parking, D.C. $125,000 You are currently paying this.

    Website management $125,000 Your current site, annualized rate based on September

    Edit, Print, mail LP News $150,000 Includes one full-time staffer. Can’t tell what you now pay form the record.

    Back office $125,000 One accountant, one front desk

    Office supplies, postage $ 50,000

    Membership retention $5 per member (the sensible way to budget it) $75,000

    Insurance (D&O, other, and related) $25,000

    Legal services and litigation $100,000

    Volunteer mobilization $100,000 Includes National Mobilization Facilitator.

    Advertising $100,000 Includes Press Director

    Ballot access, including petitioning you can do now and creating a reserve fund for 2012, targeting $400,000 for the start of 2012 $150,000

    Fundraising $25,000 + 25% of funds raised

    Reserve fund…. $50,000

    By the way, the historical main rationale for the DC office is that it puts the press director where he can interact with the press. We just had our Presidential campaign, and the press director was in Atlanta working for Barr. We got nothing for that office under that rationale, for this quadrennium. That’s the better part of a half million dollars down the drain.

  39. For the people who are dunces.

    Angela is not ENM. I know they correspond with each other and are friendly with each other. I refer you back to September when ENM was here posting Angela’s liveblogs. They are two separate people. i’m not sure where ENM lives but I don’t think it’s in California.

    Angela lives in Westwood (West Hollywood) with her hubby. She certainly doesn’t have any children old enough to call themselves ElfNino. I’m not going to comment further than that, lest I disrespect either privacy or the sacred spark of life.

    Miche lives in Texas.

    Three separate people.

    Drop this conspiracy.

  40. Oh yeah, and Angela isn’t commenting because she’s staying off the blogs period. She has a job, she has her LNC duties, and she is after all married. She’s got plenty on her plate. To expect her to continually face the firestorms around here would be impossible.

  41. And to add to that, I have been present when Angela was inteviewed by ENM on Last Free Voice and when they have talked on the phone. I have also seen Angela and Miche together in Denver.

    Definitely three different people, and whomever thinks otherwise needs to see the proctology firm of Redpath, Karlan, Starr, and Flood and get their head examined.

  42. Sorry, that was Liberty Cap Talk Live, not Last Free Voice. My error.

  43. nobody thinks i’m the keaton . . . :o(

  44. Hey–I heard that M Carling and Aaron Starr are really the same person!

  45. Nope they are also two different people, unfortunately

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: