So a few of us – namely Paulie, George Donnelly, Mike Seebeck, and myself, along with a few others who have expressed an interest, have been talking a lot about forming an LP Transparency Caucus. At this point, we’re sure that we’re moving forward with this, so we thought it a good time to start soliciting thoughts and ideas from the community at large instead of just talking amongst ourselves. We’ve got the internet site stuff set up, and just needs some design/content/etc – anyone interested in helping out, please let us know.
Here’s what we’re thinking so far: The LP Transparency Caucus is completely non-partisan in terms of reformers, radicals, etc. All we do is try to bring greater openness to the LP. This includes everything from the LNC (we plan to push for live video from every LNC meeting from now on) to bylaws and platform committees, etc. We will be putting out reports or pushing to have reports put out in as timely a manner as possible. We want as much information as feasible to be available to the entirety of the LP membership without in any way compromising the goals of the LP. Certain things are supposed to be public – and we’ll always be lobbying to make sure they are.
Beyond that, we’ll be sending candidates for internal positions such as the LNC and various committees surveys. We will publish the results of these surveys, as well as endorse the best candidates. Once elected, we will help to ensure that these candidates comply with the campaign promises made in terms of transparency and a culture of openness within the given committee. We believe that this will foster such a culture by encouraging candidates to take up pro-transparency positions as well as stick to them once in office.
So have at it – what other ideas and suggestions do you folks have? What else can be done? Keep in mind that bonus points are awarded for doers, not for talkers. Over the coming months and years, we’ll be putting our boots on the ground to try and achieve the goals we’re working on here. If you want to help by doing stuff, don’t hesitate to say so! All are welcome, and we hope you’ll find this idea worthwhile.
Thanks, Matt
Less
aynrkey
bostonteapartygoer
Kenn Jacobine
mattdharris
Mike Seebeck
Miche
paulie
Jim Davidson
ponggod
Stuart Richards
Steven Greffenius
Todd Andrew Barnett
[...] Next Free Voice: Libertarian Party Transparency Caucus forming [...]
[...] at Next Free Voice by Matt Harris and at IPR by Paulie. To avoid editorializing, which is against IPR site policy, I [...]
I dunno!
I spent a few months last summer desperately trying to convince some former employers to STOP sending money to Bob Barr and Co. (the LP).
Reasons:
1) ‘Champaign-appetite-on-a-beer-salary’ type folks are lousy workers, but even worse as ‘leaders’ like POTUS
2) I don’t want the laws of economics privatized
3) I don’t want the laws of gravity privatized
My former employers wouldn’t listen to me, nor would they listen to Mr. Nolan when he said ‘pull-the-plug’.
I ain’t LP nomo’ but BTP and happy.
Befo’ I get suckered into this LP caucus, do I have to rejoin the LP?
I mean like, I am a happy man now.
Another project we can work on
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/ipr-request-to-our-readers-who-were-at-the-lnc-meeting-in-san-diego/
I don’t think we need to demand people be members of the LP to be active in the LPTC. On the other hand, if you don’t care about helping the LP by making it more open and responsive to its membership, then the LPTC probably doesn’t appeal to you at all.
Keep in mind that at the end of the day we are trying to help the LP.
OK, one big question: I see a thread here, one at IPR, and one on George’s page. Which one is best to use?
If you have to use just one I would say IPR, that gets the most traffic and the most comments. But i would like to build this up too.
[...] Mike Seebeck have announced the formation of a new caucus within the Libertarian Party on IPR and Next Free Voice. Dubbed the “Transparency Caucus,” the goal of the new caucus is to bring openness and [...]
I’m going to distance myself from the LP (BTP only). I got chewed out yesterday from an angry ‘Fair-tax’ guy who claimed to help fund the LP in the ‘Exploratory’ phase (pre-Denver). Sounds more of an ‘audit caucus’ than ‘transparency caucus’.
I’m not answer man. I don’t represent the LP. I got no clue what LP ‘stands for’. Maybe some unprincipled party or something. Politics isn’t worth it for me if you got to spend a ton of time trying to keep your own party honest, or deal with angry financers.
-’til next election
Good luck.
Your choice, C., but I don’t think you quite get it.
“Audit” caucus? Not really, except for those in the LPTC who are big on budget numbers, so there may be some truth in it.. “Membership Oversight” caucus? Also, not really, although there is an element of that as well.
IMO only, it’s really about making sure the membership knows and understands what is going on as a whole, be it budget numbers, broadcasting meetings, or in general letting the LNC know that we’re here and watching carefully. As I pointed out in SD, it’s to create the open feedback loop between the LNC and the membership which the membership wants. Everyone in the LPTC has different focal points in that regard, which is exceptional, and that teamwork will make good things happen, as was clearly illustrated by the live broadcast.