Badnarik Debt Now $15,000

Another (final?) update from the Badnarik campaign on retiring their debt. The letter is really long, but from what I read it sounds like Allen Hacker is aiming to take possession of the campaign’s fundraising list as payment for services his consulting firm provided to the campaign. Thus, the campaign’s debt is down to a relatively reasonable $15,000.

Here’s the full text of the e-mail…

Allen’s Update – Jan07 – Retire the Debt!
Hello once again,

Allen Hacker here, for the Badnarik for Congress campaign, with what will probably be the last fundraising email of the campaign.

I have good news. The “hard money” portion of the debt is down to about $15,000.

How did we get so far? First, I converted all of my non-financial work to volunteerism. All of my time planning, managing, fundraising and working out in the field, has been taken out of the equation. I won’t be paid personally for consulting or managing, and there will be no fundraising commissions or bonus. I can’t do the same with all of the expenses portion, but even those were reducible because my wife moved here in August and as of our giving up our California home, the double living expenses virtually stopped. Travel disappeared as well.

Not of lesser importance, you guys have been helpful through your continued contributions.

But that’s not to say that we raised $50,000 of the $65,000 I talked about in my last update. First, there have been two additional months of expenses, so before any payments, that amount went up a bit. Second, I have found yet another way to retire part of the debt. I’ll tell you about it in a moment.

What this all means is that we only need about $15,000 more in cash and we can close this campaign out!

Yes, I know, there are already 2008 presidential and gubernatorial (and other) candidates asking you for money, some of whom you may want to support. My first take on that? It’s good. It proves we’ve had a positive effect on the way Libertarians do politics. People are starting early and promising to really work at it. It’s possible that the 2008 LP presidential nominee, whomever it turns out to be, will have raised and spent a record amount of money in the primary for that position. There may also be those who will become shrill about that and criticize (unless the nominee is someone they supported), but that’s just a reminder of how far we have to go to prove that libertarians are capable of civilization.

Michael is settled in over at thebumpersticker.com and is in fact taking sticker orders from many of those 2008 candidates already.

You may have seen, or heard about, Michael’s own email update of this month, in which he confirms what we’ve said all along: he will not be a candidate for the 2008 LP presidential nomination. Perhaps this will finally quiet those who called us liars when we said it before. Including a last-term member or two of the LNC itself?

I sincerely hope that the LP begins to act its age this election cycle. 35 years old and still acting like an immature teenager in public, it’s been embarrassing. Not that this is an accurate depiction of the vast majority of libertarians. No, it’s just the public image created by a noisy few. I hope you majority start shutting them down. Tell them to stop spouting off without the facts, stop jumping to conclusions without asking questions, and to stop running macho-flash campaigns. Oh, and it wouldn’t hurt to demand that they stop misdefining libertarianism. It’s not anarchy, it’s not anarcho-capitalist, it’s not a front group for Objectivists and Atheists, it’s a political party that was founded to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state. Not to challenge the state itself, because the state is merely a product of the cult. But to challenge the cult, electorally and educationally.

Of course, using a political party to educate the public hasn’t proven to be all that viable a solution. Sure, more people hear about us every 4 years, but the net results of that have only been that each four years we have that many more ex-members and that much less liberty.

So: to answer the question I’ve been being asked, what am I personally going to do next….

I’ve had several offers to manage presidential primary campaigns. I note that most of those came with the reason being that I am a great fundraiser. And a few also came with the warning that I would be part of a committee, not in total control. What’s interesting is that in all but two of those invitations, it’s been about getting the money and not at all about running the campaign. What does this mean? I’m seen as a fundraiser, overall.

Well, I am a salesman, and asking for the money is part of selling, so sure, I can do that. But another part of selling is making the pitch. I can do that also, but I don’t plan to run for any office.

Besides, running for office, any of us running for office, isn’t everything the libertarian movement needs to do. Actually, first, the movement needs to exist. It doesn’t really, you know. There’s no groundswell sweeping across the nation demanding the rollback of the Patriot Act and the abolition of Homeland Security. There’s not even a significant groundswell in support of medical marijuana. Modest gains, yes, but way more struggle than there should be.

We have think-tanks like Cato and Reason, we have the LP, but we don’t have a dedicated outreach thingy out there in the environment, free from party politics and sectarian influence, just finding and nurturing libertarians. That’s where I’m going. And, fundraising.

Recall, I mentioned above that I’ve figured out a way to finish retiring the debt beyond the hard-money portion. Here’s how that works.

When our campaign staff were attacked by name on the blogs for getting paid and fed by the campaign, I terminated them all from the campaign committee itself and brought them into my consulting firm. This was to shield them and future staffers from dogbite, but it turns out it has other advantages. I can bill the campaign for their services through the consulting firm, and as long as the campaign pays for that in some form or another, it’s up to me to then pay them.

So I can buy the remainder assets of the campaign with cash, which would then be used to pay my firm, and thence to pay the staff. Or the firm can just accept the assets in payment at reasonable used-car-type valuations, and either convert those assets to cash to pay the staff, or pay the staff with other firm assets or funding.

I’m not sure yet which way that will go, whether I will buy the assets or accept them in settlement, but either way, all that remains to be raised from you and others is the $15,000 mentioned above. And either way, the net results are the same. The campaign closes as soon as the $15,000 has been raised, and we all move on.

You might ask, What assets does the campaign have that could possibly be worth, what, $50,000? Certainly not the remaining furniture and computers, if any. No. That’s maybe two grand.

But the campaign has refined this mailing list. It’s value is somewhat subjective, but that value is actually a function of who is using it and what they’re using it for. In my hands, as a fundraising foundation for ballot access campaigns, to support the presidential campaign, and to fund a 527 independent expenditure committee, this list will prove quite valuable. Which is why this will work. Given that the list started out as a 6500-donor list that had raised over a million dollars in the 2004 presidential campaign, and is now a 20,000-name resource filled with limited-government types, and given my proven ability to raise money through it, the list is easily worth $50,000. (If you don’t want those mailings, just click the Remove Me link in the first one you get. We’ll have that function installed before we use the list.)

Whether I buy it and pay my people, or accept it in lieu of payment and capitalize it to pay my people, makes no difference.—Except that for me to buy it, I have to borrow, and frankly, working 15 months without pay does hurt one’s credit rating, so that’s not the easy way and the less I were to borrow, the easier (and better).

What’s a 527 independent expenditure committee, and what will ours look like? 527 is an internal revenue code section that provides for campaign entities to raise and spend money independently of all candidates but possibly in support of one or more candidates, as long as there’s no coordination between the candidate/ candidate’s committee and the 527. Think 2004’s Swift Boat Veterans. They weren’t part of, affiliated with, or directed by the Bush campaign, they just came in independently (or so we’re told) and attacked Kerry for their own reasons.

The beauty of 527s is that they are not limited in contributions the way candidate committees are. The rules change every year, but as long as the megaparty sees them as useful they’ll be there, and we can have the same advantages as well: currently, no contribution limits, yes to anonymous and corporate contributions, and minimal reporting requirements.

Think about this. Most libertarians complain that campaign contribution limits are unfair restrictions on the donors’ political free speech. But that’s not true. Candidates and individuals can spend all their own money they wish. The candidate can spend it through a committee or independently; other entities must spend it independently. But spend it they may. That’s what the 527 is for.

An example is George Soros funding some Billion dollars in “progressive” (marxist) 527s to support radical Democrats and Greens and their issues.

It’s time we started getting serious about politics. Inside the LP and out. So I’m going to be focusing outside more than in, because that’s where our breakdown is.

We don’t have a broad enough donor base to win any serious elections? Broaden the donor base! Broadening the donor base is impossible because we don’t have a big enough supporter base? Broaden the supporter base! Find and nurture new people and prevent in-house dufus radicals from driving them away! Stop saying why we can’t and start doing something about it.

That’s me, I’m going to do something about it. I’m going to broaden the donor base by broadening the support base by broadening the membership and registration bases, by committing proactive limited-government outreach toward finding and creating limited-government and libertarian citizens through a project named LawfulGov.Org.

LawfulGov.Org is both a name and a website, and the draft website has already been prototyped. The capitalization is not required in your browser, it just makes the URL/name easy to read.

LawfulGov.org is not totally new. I started it in 2003 as a grassroots-based multilevel watchdog organization but let it lie while I went out and played in the electoral fields with Michael Badnarik. Now I’m back to it.

We actually have a track record of success already. Back in 2003, then-Gov. Gray Davis illegally tripled the tax potion of car registration fees to cover California’s financial malfeasance. We initiated a project named CarTaxRevolt (in honor of limited-government state senator Tom McClintock’s call for such a movement), and we were instrumental in getting the tax rolled back and Gray Davis recalled. We made news all the way to Europe, and it was just 4 guys and 25 donors with a website. You can confirm all this. That part of the website is still there. And you can ask David Nolan. He lived in Southern California at the time, and when he had questions about the protest procedure for refusing to pay the illegal tax increase, the result of his web search was that he found and called… US! I know, because I took the call.

Anyway, you can read more at LawfulGov.Org. You can begin to support it right there at the site, too, if you are so inclined. You can contribute through the site (after you’ve given one last time to help retire the Badnarik for Congress debt, of course), and you can apply to become a local facilitator, or you can join – ask me how.

I haven’t posted the facilitator job requirements yet (I’m open to suggestions, made through the site), but you can expect the organization to be loosely similar in structure and operation to an “ALL Your Rights, All the Time!” kind of ACLU, without the liberal egenda and anti gun politics.

I’ll be spending a lot more time completing the website as I wrap up this campaign. Suggestions are welcome.

Oh yes. You might wonder what’s to become of the staff. Jon’s got a job for and is waiting for LawfulGov.Org to take off, when he’ll then begin to make movie shorts as part of our outreach plan. Susan’s moving back to Ohio after an exemplary stint as assistant treasurer and financial co-manager (part of that hard-money amount is her moving expense, promised when she came here to help). The others have standing invitations to consider participating in some fashion when we have the thing rolling.

So there you have it, up-to-date info on the progress of winding down the Badnarik for Congress campaign, and what’s next.

The final report is in the works but will not be filed until the campaign closes.

All that’s left, really, is to raise and pay off that last $15,000. Your help will be greatly appreciated, particularly by Michael, who will be stuck with whatever doesn’t get covered. Go to www.badnarik.org and click one of the Donation buttons/links, and help us out.

Don’t forget to actually select that Retire Debt response code it’s not automatically inserted, and if you don’t select it, we’ll have to bug you to put it in writing. If you mail a check, please write “campaign winddown” on the For line; if you contribute using the PayPal option and you see a comments box, please type in “campaign wind-down”.

Do it now, please: www.badnarik.org—thank you!

Thanks for everything, and here’s to the next round

Allen Hacker
campaign manager and treasurer,
Badnarik for Congress

74 Responses to “Badnarik Debt Now $15,000”

  1. khatores Says:

    Gee, it’s a good thing Hacker was so generous to donate his hard-earned labors back to the campaign…dunno what they would have done without his, uhhh…”expert” assistance. Maybe they would have had to look elsewhere to get those creepy V for Vendetta masks.

  2. Chris Moore Says:

    It proves we’ve had a positive effect on the way Libertarians do politics.

    Nope. The front runners for the nomination have been in the hunt long before you did anything, Mr. Hacker. In fact, George Phillies has been advocating an early start for Presidential candidates loooooong before the Badnarik for Congress campaign.

    There may also be those who will become shrill about that and criticize, but that’s just a reminder of how far we have to go to prove that libertarians are capable of civilization.

    That’s how civilization works. There are good people and bad people. Good and smart people generally ignore the bad people and let the truth be their defense against baseless accusations. They also take responsibility for their failures instead of blaming the bad people.

    I sincerely hope that the LP begins to act its age this election cycle. 35 years old and still acting like an immature teenager in public, it’s been embarrassing.

    I appreciate all the hard work everyone in the Libertarian Party has done, and I believe that with the resources available, most libertarians have done an outstanding job. I’m proud to be a member of the Libertarian Party. I’m NOT embarrassed by its efforts.

    When our campaign staff were attacked by name on the blogs for getting paid and fed by the campaign, I terminated them all from the campaign committee itself and brought them into my consulting firm.

    And how did that work out for you? Did the lack of transparency help or hurt the campaign?

    Your help will be greatly appreciated, particularly by Michael, who will be stuck with whatever doesn’t get covered.

    This is a lie. Badnarik will not be personally saddled with the remaining debt.

    I clicked “unsubscribe”.

  3. Dan Says:

    If that election had been held on the planet Xenu where Allen ran all those radio and TV ads he purchased the turnout might have been better.

    We really need to stop being dimension-phobes and start letting transdimensional beings vote.

  4. Trent Hill Says:

    Agreed Dan.

    I mean, Transdimensionals deserve to vote too! They are a significant portion of our populaton and help our society in serious ways. Tom Cruise/Allen Hacker for the “Transdimensional Crazies” 08 ticket!

  5. General Lee Says:

    Who are the campaigns that have asked Allen Hacker to be their campaign manager or fundraiser?

    I know of one that has bragged about it.

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/24/badnariks-gonna-advise-the-chapman-campaign/

    I wonder if this is actually true.

    There’s also this:

    http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2007/01/16/allen-hacker-to-be-professor-at-gene-chapman-university/

    Will Hacker be managing Chapman 2008?

    What other campaigns is Hacker considering?

    There is little doubt in any sane, attentive person’s mind that Allen Hacker
    is the top Libertarian manager, hands down, and any campaign would
    certainly be lucky to have him.

    Likewise, many Libertarians, Constitution Party members, Southern Party
    and Boston Tea party supporters as well as Goldwater Conservatives in the GOP are all abuzz with rumors of the Gene Chapman candidacy.

    The question is, can these parties put aside their differences and come together around Gene Chapman as our united candidate? Can Gene Chapman actually win the Republican nomination as well?

    With Allen Hacker on board, it certainly seems well within our grasp.

    Between Chapman’s musical genius and Hacker’s unquestionable management talents, this is a campaign that could catch fire across America.

    But can Chapman and Hacker come to terms? And will the small-minded
    sectarians agree to get behind Chapman when he inevitably wins the
    Republican nomination, or will those sad sheep keep marching to their slaughter, taxed in property, taxed in labor and counted like cattle?

    Send Allen -$200,000- $15,000 to find out!

    With prices this low on this limited time offer, how can you afford to wait?
    Do it NOW! Operators are standing by.

  6. Allen Hacker Says:

    I wrote:

    Your help will be greatly appreciated, particularly by Michael, who will be stuck with whatever doesn’t get covered.

    Chris Moore says:

    “This is a lie. Badnarik will not be personally saddled with the remaining debt.”

    Chris, if I’ve got a bit of the election law wrong, please enlighten us, we’d beglad to know that no one has to pay the debts and how that works. Not that we’d want to stiff any vendors or anything, but it would be interesting that with all that guff about making elections honest that justified the BCRA, it would then allow campaigns to run up huge bills and not see to them getting paid.

    It is true that if a vendor makes diligent attempts to get paid over 4 years and the campaign has no money and the candidate is never a candidate again, then the vendor can write it off. Otherwise, it’s either a debt that only the candidate can pay, or an illegal contribution.

    Meanwhile, please be judicious in your use of the word “lie”. I’m used to false accusations on this blog, but you’re not used to making them, and I don’t think you want to be remembered as someone who did.

    0

  7. Timothy West Says:

    From Editor and Publisher:

    In an online chat at washingtonpost.com this afternoon, Carl Bernstein, the famed Watergate reporter at that paper and now writing articles for Vanity Fair, took several hard shots at the current Bush administration—almost every time he was asked about the Nixon era. It came just as news of the death of former Watergate ringleader E. Howard Hunt was circulating widely.

    After a long explanation of how the American system “worked,” eventually, with Watergate, Bernstein said:

    “In the case George W. Bush, the American system has obviously failed—tragically—about which we can talk more in a minute. But imagine the difference in our worldview today, had the institutions—particularly of government—done their job to ensure that a mendacious and dangerous president (as has since been proven many times over, beyond mere assertion) be restrained in a war that has killed thousands of American soldiers, brought turmoil to the lives of millions, and constrained the goodwill towards the United States in much of the world.”

    Later, asked if the Nixon administration was unique in hiring disreputable characters, he replied: “Until the Bush-43 administration, I had believed that the Nixon presidency was sui generis in modern American history in terms of your question…

    “In terms of small-bore (but dangerous) characters like Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy with their schemes, I doubt that any presidency approaches the criminality of the Nixon White House. But the Watergate conspiracy—to undermine the constitution and use illegal methods to hurt Nixon’s political opponents and even undermine the electoral system—was supervised by those at the very top.

    “In the current administration we have seen from the President down—especially Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld—a willingness to ignore the great constitutional history of the United States—to suspend, really, many of the constitutional guarantees that have made us a nation apart, with real freedoms unknown elsewhere, unrestricted by short-term political objectives of our leaders.

    “Then there are the Geneva conventions: Who would have dreamed that, in our lifetime, our leaders would permit their flagrant abuse, would authorize torture, ‘renditions’ to foreign-torture chambers, suspension of habeus corpus, illegal surveillance of our own citizens….

    “But perhaps worst, has been the lying and mendacity of the president and his men and women—in the reasons they cited for going to war, their conduct of the war, their attempts to smear their political opponents.

    “Nixon and his men lied and abused the constitution to horrible effect, but they were stopped.

    “The Bush Administration—especially its top officials named above and others familiar to most Americans—was not stopped, and has done far greater damage. As a (Republican) bumper-sticker of the day proclaimed, ‘Nobody died at Watergate.’ If only we could say that about the era of George W. Bush, and that our elected representatives in Congress and our judiciary had been courageous enough to do their duty and hold the President and his aides accountable.”

    Bernstein was also asked about the CIA leak case and the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, which he called “a truly Nixonian event, a happenstance not atypical of the take-no-prisoners politics of the Bush presidency. But it pales in comparison to the larger questions of the Constitution, of life and death, of the Geneva conventions, of the expectation that our leaders—from Condoleeza Rice to Dick Cheney, to the attorney(s) general to Paul Wolfowitz and on down and up the line speak truthfully to the American people and the Congress. They have consistently failed to do so.”

  8. Timothy West Says:

    The LP should assemble the available evidence and officially call for Bush’s impeachment. I was out in front with the IES, it should be out in front again. It has to be involved either through it’s announced candidates or as a party.

    Calling for Bush’s impeachment now would be a tactical masterstroke. We give it to both the D’s and R’s, and focus attention on the LP. Carefully worded it needs to be.

    The leader of a nation is not the nation. Thats Fascism.

  9. No thanks Says:

    “An example is George Soros funding some Billion dollars in “progressive” (marxist) 527s to support radical Democrats and Greens and their issues.”

    I’m sorry, but George Soros has done far more for individual liberty than Badnarik and Hacker ever will.

    “but you can expect the organization to be loosely similar in structure and operation to an “ALL Your Rights, All the Time!” kind of ACLU, without the liberal egenda and anti gun politics.”

    I have never had a problem with the ACLU’s lack of position on gun control or their “liberal egenda [sic].” Regulating arms and arms production is NOT inherently unconstitutional and I feel far more comfortable with the ACLU’s liberalism than with the tax protester kooks those Free State Embarassments in NH seem to love.

  10. Meg Says:

    Mr. Hacker,

    Can you ask Badnarik to check into that site he endorsed, LibertyMix.com? It’s a year late, and I donated to the site based upon his endorsement letter.

    If you’ve forgotten, here is a link to the glowing endorsement letter he wrote.

    If you could ask him to check into that, I would be most grateful. Thanks!

  11. Andy Says:

    “No thanks Says:

    January 25th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
    “An example is George Soros funding some Billion dollars in “progressive” (marxist) 527s to support radical Democrats and Greens and their issues.”

    I’m sorry, but George Soros has done far more for individual liberty than Badnarik and Hacker ever will.”

    Yeah, George Soros has donated millions of dollars to gun control organizations and he supported John Kerry for President. I know that he has also given money to marijuana groups but I would hardly call George Soros a champion of liberty. Soros is a member of the Bilderberg Group and I would not trust him.

  12. T. Bryant Says:

    “Between Chapman’s musical genius and Hacker’s unquestionable management talents, this is a campaign that could catch fire across America.”

    Catch fire? I doubt it. Chapman tried to set himself on fire next to a leaky propane tank in a crowded area but the FBI stopped him.

    This after Chapman went on a death-fast. You may remember it as the only death-fast in history where the person “starving” himself gained a ton of weight.

    Chapman and Hacker…that’s a combination that will provide many more amusing tales.

  13. Allen Hacker Says:

    Meg,

    As I recall, Michael endorsed Liberty Mix as a concept and on the basis of Steve Gordon’s involvement. Steve Gordon is no longer involved, Michael is no longer involved, and he and I don’t talk about HoT or TPW because he’s pretty upset with them.

    Look, it’s an ambitious project, and Steve V is a hand-to-mouth kind of guy who no doubt has to keep giving priority to the paying jobs in the moment, and that keeps him from getting things done. That’s just my impression, but it’s to say that he’s not a man of ill intent, and I expect he’ll get there as he’s able. But I don’t know, because he and I aren’t close.

    I’m sure somebody here has more info, but I’m sure Michael is not the one to ask. He has since distanced himself from the project. Yes, he endorsed it, no, e did not remember because of all that was on his mind at the time he said he didn’t endorse it, but he has accepted my and Jon’s assurances that he did. But I’m pretty sure he doesn’t now.

    Sorry.

    0

  14. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Just to clarify on Allen’s post…

    “Steve Gordon is no longer involved, Michael is no longer involved, and he and I don’t talk about HoT or TPW because he’s pretty upset with them.”

    If Badnarik is upset with TPW, that’s fine… but TPW had nothing directly to do with LibertyMix, as that was entirely a project of the folks who ran Hammer of Truth.

    Just to be clear, so no one comes looking to me for money or an explanation or anything. I know as much as has been posted publicly.

  15. George Phillies Says:

    In fairness, the notion of starting a Presidential campaign early is familiar in other parties, and among Libertarians can certainly be traced back to Harry Browne’s two campaigns. Michael Badnarik started a year or more before the nomination. I did start early, but I do not deserve credit for inventing the idea.

  16. General Lee Says:

    Tom Bryant,

    You are making my point for me…

    It is true, as you say, that all third party supporters, except the Communists, and all true conservative patriotic Republicans – and indeed AMERICANS - are positively starving for Chapman to be our candidate, our leader, and our next President.

    Like me, I am sure that you will be proud to have him as our next Commander in Chief. With Allen Hacker as manager, we can take this campaign all the way to infinity…and beyond!

  17. Doug Craig Says:

    Where is Liberty mix? Where is Badnarik ? How come he don’t out and ask for money ? If Badnarik owes Allen money then let’s hear him say so. Allen I have been very postive toward you and Badnarik but man you have just about got on my last nerve.In the end you have hurt the party and you have made it harder on me and others who work on campaigns.It will be harder to raise money because of YOU.Btw I unsubsribed from your email list today because you are crazy.

  18. Chris Moore Says:

    “Meanwhile, please be judicious in your use of the word “lie”.”

    If the $15,000 is not paid, will Mr. Badnarik be personally responsible for the debt? Will vendors be able to go after Mr. Badnarik’s personal assets and/or attack his credit rating?

    And while we are on the subject, what vendors have not yet been paid?

  19. Mike N. Says:

    Oh brother… here he goes again….

  20. Mike N. Says:

    So Hacker, what did you spend the other $300k on? You paid yourself (your “company”) $100k. Did $300k go to 3 billboards?

  21. Meg Says:

    What? Stephen Gordon is no longer involved with LibertyMix???

    I was not aware of this development. Thank you for telling me.

  22. Stuart Richards Says:

    Go back to your homeworld! Deport all Xenoids, and stop stealing jobs from honest, hardworking American political consultants!

    We need to give more money to NASA to prevent these illegal border crossings from happening.

  23. Allen Hacker Says:

    Chris,

    Essentially, Yes. It’s because of a quirk in the stupid law. Other than the candidate himself, no one, not even the campaign treasurer or manager, can give a federal campaign more than the legal limit at the time of that campaign ($2100 in this case). So even if the treasurer of manager wanted to pay off the debt, he couldn’t if it was more than $2100; that would be an illegal contribution.

    Therefore, only the candidate and proper below-limit donors can pay it off. And if it doesn’t get paid, the only person who can be taken to court or liened or otherwise bothered by creditors is the candidate, because he’s the only one allowed to pay it.

    So I continue fundraising, so they’ll get paid, or at least it won’t get worse, and so Michael ends up with the smallest possible liability if it doesn’t all get covered.

    I do the fundraising because Michael has gone to work full-time and frankly, needed a break. 4 years of full-time campaigning and a couple severe kicks in the teeth by people he thought were friends kind of laid him back.

    Now, if I get a loan on or sell my property, I can buy the mailing list for whatever reasonable price, and the proceeds of that sale are not a contribution. That’s a loophole in the campaign law; rentals and sales of mailing lists are exempt from limits because they are not defined as contributions.

    Or, I can take the mailing list as an in-lieu payment for the staffing/expenses part of the debt, and fundraise for the hard-money part. That’s what I’m currently doing, becaue one can’t sit around and wait for the real estate fairy to smile down.

    If I had it I, or someone else, could loan Michael the money to pay off the debt, but if he didn’t repay and the FEC found out, they’d call it a straw transaction and classify the loan an illegal contribution.

    That’s most of what there is to know about that.

    Currently, we still owe some back rent, current bills, expenses under contract through December, and a renegotiable amount to the LNC.

    0

  24. Doug Craig Says:

    I want to know WHY badnarik is not asking for the money? I want to hear from Badnarik what he owes.Badnarik is losing face in the party. If wants to save face we need to hear from HIM.If you can not take a few jabs then you need to stay out of the ring. Badnarik is a Big boy I believe he can handle it. But maybe I am wrong because he has yet to address this in puplic.Badnarik where are YOu?

  25. Roscoe Says:

    Upshot of this is don’t be a creditor to a losing campaign. Treat it like a loan to friends or family – that is, you will probably never see the money again. Those renting office space or providing printing, etc. should deal on a COD basis. If the candidate’s finance committee can’t come up with the dough in advance, then it’s probably a losing campaign. IF YOU LOSE YOUR MONEY, DON’T BITCH ABOUT IT.

  26. Eric Sundwall Says:

    Badnarik for Congress currently owes the LNC $8500.

  27. Joey Dauben Says:

    “Ther turrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkk urrrrrrrrrr jooooooooooooooobbbbbbbbbbbbbbs”

  28. Mike N. Says:

    I am still baffled on how a campaign that raised $400k and spent zilch on advertising could possibly be in debt.

    2004 TX CD-10 Results:

    Michael T. McCaul (REP)
    182,113 votes
    78.61%
    $2,927,850 spent

    Robert Fritsche (LIB)
    35,569
    15.35%
    $0 spent

    Lorenzo Sadun (Write-in)
    13,961
    6.02%
    N/A spent

    2006 TX CD-10 Results:

    Michael T. McCaul (REP)
    97,726
    55.28%
    $1,146,043 spent

    Ted Ankrum (DEM)
    71,415
    40.40%
    $72,061 spent

    Michael Badnarik (LIB)
    7,614
    4.30%
    $411,146 spent

    Sources:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/

    http://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist.exe

    The 2004 WRITE-IN received nearly twice as many votes than Badnarik did in 2006!

  29. Mike N. Says:

    And the absolute worst, most ineffective, most inefficient Campaign Manager of the year goes to….. L. Ron Hacker.

  30. Mike N. Says:

    With a different campaign manager, Badnarik might have been able to win a state legislature race… HINT

  31. No thanks Says:

    “Yeah, George Soros has donated millions of dollars to gun control organizations and he supported John Kerry for President. I know that he has also given money to marijuana groups but I would hardly call George Soros a champion of liberty. Soros is a member of the Bilderberg Group and I would not trust him.”

    Andy,

    Have you heard of the Open Society Institute? Soros has been instrumental in spreading liberalism in the former Soviet republics. This is what I was referring to.

  32. Kn@ppster Says:

    Doug,

    I happen to sympathize with Michael’s situation. Since declaring for the 2004 presidential nomination, he’s run three campaigns, and two TYPES of campaigns:

    1) Pre-nomination, his campaign was hand-to-mouth. He barnstormed around the country trying to raise enough money to keep gas in the Kia and reach as many Libertarians as possible. There was no campaign spending on credit. It was pay-as-you-go. His staff consisted of one travel aide and a volunteer here and there.

    2) Post-nomination, he turned the campaign mechanics over to competent staffers. Once again, he barnstormed around the country, this time to reach as many voters as possible, and this time with a staff behind him making sure the money was there to keep him doing so, and to do other things (advertising, etc.).

    Those two campaigns were very similar at the personal level of Michael himself. His job was to travel and talk, not to do the books—in the first case because there were few books to do ($40K in the year-plus he spent campaigning for the nomination), in the second case because there were professionals to take care of that (about a million bucks in five months).

    3) He tried to run his third campaign, for Congress, the way he ran the post-nomination presidential campaign—his job was to get out there and Be The Candidate, and others were retained to handle the mechanics and make the day-to-day decisions on income versus expenditure.

    I’m assuming that at this late date, Michael has realized that there’s a qualitative difference between the management abilities of Fred Collins and Barbara Goushaw and those of Allen Hacker—that the former kept expenditures in line with revenues and spent money wisely, while the latter let expenditures outpace revenues and made poor decisions.

    The buck stops with Michael, of course, but I can understand why this would hit him hard, embarrass him and incline him toward backing off from public comment. He did what he’s good at, he did what he knows how to do … and things collapsed around him, effectively ending his aspirations as a candidate. That’s gotta hurt, man.

    Mike, I appreciate your point, but you’re leaving one major expenditure out of your $100K for Hacker, $300K for what else?” equation, and that’s the cost of RAISING that money. The campaign did not net $400K, it grossed $400K. I’d not be at all surprised if legit fundraising overhead came to $200K or more. Raising money can be expensive.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  33. Meg Says:

    Oh, Knapp – I’m glad you showed up.

    You’ve stated that you are a paid consultant for LibertyMix.com, the project from Stephen Van Dyke and Stephen Gordon of Hammer of Truth.

    As such, could you possibly give us some insight into what’s going on with that site? Why it’s been delayed nearly a year, where the over $10,000 raised for the site went, why our emails for info go unanswered, whether or not Stephen Gordon is still involved, etc?

    Thank you so much, and have a great day.

  34. General Lee Says:

    Ms. Donovan,

    TLK’s link above says

    Disclaimer: I am associated in a consultative role for which I may receive compensation or renumeration with the project described above.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/may

    It does not say Mr. Knapp was or is a paid consultant, nor whether he has had anything at all to do with Liberty Mix since that was posted about a year ago.

    Steve Gordon ended his involvement with LibertyMix when he was hired as the National LP Communications Director in June, and said so publically at the time.

    The only person involved with putting LibertyMix together at this time, as far as anyone knows, is Steve Van Dyke.

    You can keep trying to reach him, or you can join us at Last Free Voice in the meantime. Just click on “General Lee.”

  35. Chris Moore Says:

    Essentially, Yes. It’s because of a quirk in the stupid law.

    I was under the impression that the committee structure was formed similar to a corporation. It is very likely that I am wrong, though. So I apologize for calling you a liar in that respect.

  36. meg Says:

    Do you know where I can find Gordon’s breaking of ties with Libertymix? I missed that. Did he keep any of the $10,000?

  37. meg Says:

    Oops, you’re right about the “paid” thing – indeed, he says he MAY get paid. But he definately cops to a consultative role.

    I already subscribe to LFV via Bloglines, btw…

  38. Kn@ppster Says:

    Meg,

    You write:

    “You’ve stated that you are a paid consultant for LibertyMix.com, the project from Stephen Van Dyke and Stephen Gordon of Hammer of Truth.”

    I normally don’t divulge precisely what I do for any given client, but given the long timeline and general dissatisfaction in this particular case, I’ll break that rule. My role with LibertyMix involved writing the endorsement/fundraising letter for it that appeared over Michael Badnarik’s signature, and a little bit of getting the word out about the project.

    I don’t remember how my compensation for these things was calculated, but to the best of my recollection it came to less than $100, plus a free “premium” membership when the site launches. I work cheap.

    “As such, could you possibly give us some insight into what’s going on with that site? Why it’s been delayed nearly a year, where the over $10,000 raised for the site went, why our emails for info go unanswered, whether or not Stephen Gordon is still involved, etc?”

    I’m sorry that I can’t be of much help there, but I’ll do my best:

    1) What’s going on with the site, so far as I know, is that Stephen Van Dyke is still working on it. My only source for that knowledge is the same as yours, though—Mr. Van Dyke’s public statements.

    2) I can take some guesses as to why it’s been delayed more than a year, but they’re just guesses. Among them are that Stephen Gordon’s active involvement ended when he was hired as communications director for the Libertarian Party; that Mr. Van Dyke became involved in one or more LP campaigns that ate up a lot of his time (e.g. Peirce for Governor in Ohio is the one that comes to mind); and after that …

    ... I don’t know. Maybe he’s having to work some kind of time-consuming day job to keep himself in ramen noodles while he works on it. Maybe he ran into some kind of intractable coding problem with doing something he considers absolutely essential to the site. Maybe he’s just a scheming, fraudulent con artist. I wouldn’t bet on that last one, based on my prior experience with him, but I’m not going to pretend that that isn’t the conclusion some people have reached.

    3) Where did the $10,000 go? I’ve told you where ~$100 or so went. As for the rest, I don’t know. I’m assuming that the point of raising the money was to provide for both infrastructure (server/hosting/software) and for the care and feeding of the site’s operator(s) while they put it together, but that’s just my best guess. I don’t know if Michael Badnarik was paid for the endorsement letter, but offhand I doubt it. He was grateful (and rightly so) for the fine work that Gordon and Van Dyke did on his presidential campaign, so I would guess that it was a personal favor, not a paid service.

    4) As for why your emails go unanswered … not a clue (unless you’re talking about emails to me, in which case the reason for that is that I don’t use my old Yahoo address much any more and haven’t checked it in weeks). I can tell you that my communications via email with Mr. Van Dyke are usually terse and to the point because he always seems to be busy with something. Maybe he considers himself too busy to reply even tersely on that particular matter. Or maybe he’s decided that replying at all is a lose-lose proposition. Or maybe he’s ass-deep in coding the site and would rather get it done five minutes faster than spend five minutes replying to an email. Or maybe one of those speculative “evil, fraudulent guy” answers. Once again, I don’t think that but I’m not going to pretend that nobody thinks it.

    5) Finally, regarding Steve Gordon: I don’t have his post archived—it was on the old Hammer of Truth—so I’m going from memory, but my recollection is that when he was hired as the LP communications director, he immediately recused himself from the business end of HoT/Libertymix, and stated that his future involvement would be limited to (and very limited with the context of) making an occasional blog post when doing so would not conflict with his LPHQ duties.

    Like I said, I wish I could be more helpful. If I was a programmer or kickass site developer, I’d offer to help put LibertyMix together without compensation, simply because I’d like to use it and because I’d like to see SG/SVD back in good reputation with those who forked over for it. If there’s anything I can do to help, Mr. Van Dyke knows where to find me and knows I’d certainly do it, so I’m assuming there isn’t.

    In the meantime, I’ve taken a personal position of neither complaining about the continuing delay of LibertyMix or defending Mr. Van Dyke and Mr. Gordon with respect to that delay. Not my bailiwick. I do hope that things get resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, though.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  39. meg Says:

    Thank you so much for your reply. It is the most substantive word I’ve heard on the topic in months, and I am grateful.

    It also explains why Badnarik didn’t recall his endorsement.

    Thanks again!

  40. Andy Says:

    “3) He tried to run his third campaign, for Congress, the way he ran the post-nomination presidential campaign—his job was to get out there and Be The Candidate, and others were retained to handle the mechanics and make the day-to-day decisions on income versus expenditure.

    I’m assuming that at this late date, Michael has realized that there’s a qualitative difference between the management abilities of Fred Collins and Barbara Goushaw and those of Allen Hacker—that the former kept expenditures in line with revenues and spent money wisely, while the latter let expenditures outpace revenues and made poor decisions.

    The buck stops with Michael, of course, but I can understand why this would hit him hard, embarrass him and incline him toward backing off from public comment. He did what he’s good at, he did what he knows how to do … and things collapsed around him, effectively ending his aspirations as a candidate. That’s gotta hurt, man.”

    Michael Badnarik is a good, pricipled, hard working activist. It is a damn shame after all that he’s done and went through that he’s now hiding his head in shame because he made a poor choice in hiring campaign management.

    “Mike, I appreciate your point, but you’re leaving one major expenditure out of your $100K for Hacker, $300K for what else?” equation, and that’s the cost of RAISING that money. The campaign did not net $400K, it grossed $400K. I’d not be at all surprised if legit fundraising overhead came to $200K or more. Raising money can be expensive.”

    I know that the campaign had overhead, but the fact remains that they had the funds to produce tangible outreach months before the election and they failed to do so. If more people would have seen their campaign donations going to good use the campaign could have raised a lot more money. Very little of what they raised went to outreach and what little outreach they did was pretty lame.

  41. txcoast77 Says:

    [b]Allen Hacker[/b]
    [i]Essentially, Yes. It’s because of a quirk in the stupid law. Other than the candidate himself, no one, not even the campaign treasurer or manager, can give a federal campaign more than the legal limit at the time of that campaign ($2100 in this case). So even if the treasurer of manager wanted to pay off the debt, he couldn’t if it was more than $2100; that would be an illegal contribution.[/i]

    Well, that blows.

    Here’s a good question that several people have already raised and you haven’t answered, instead candy-coating and sidestepping the issue…HOW IN THE WORLD did you spend $300,000, and have much less to show for it than a write-in candidate who spent far less money, but got many more votes? WHAT did you spend it on?

    Imagination? Get-out-the-vote fairies? Starbucks? Extremely expensive orange juice?

    Libertarians are all about responsible spending in government, but I wouldn’t trust my government’s budget to a party that can’t even balance its own $300,000 budget. You’re not even able to pay your campaign off in an orderly fashion, how do you expect to run the federal government, AND cull it down? Maybe if you hadn’t pissed away those contributions, you wouldn’t be in the red now.

    Oh, and maybe if you used better judgment in both spending and strategy, you could win something. Just a thought…

  42. Kn@ppster Says:

    Andy,

    You write:

    “I know that the campaign had overhead, but the fact remains that they had the funds to produce tangible outreach months before the election and they failed to do so. If more people would have seen their campaign donations going to good use the campaign could have raised a lot more money. Very little of what they raised went to outreach and what little outreach they did was pretty lame.”

    I must not be making my point clearly:

    1) I agree that a lot more outreach should have been done, although there certainly was SOME tangible outreach (billboards, etc.). I’m not really interested in arguing about the quality of that outreach.

    2) BUT, when we’re talking about money, let’s include all factors. No, people don’t automatically contribute to campaigns when those campaigns do good things. If you want to raise money, you have to ASK for it, and ASKING for it is generally expensive in proportion to results. Broadcast email appeals are cheap or free and produce low response/low contribution per respondent. Targeted emails do better, but good lists cost. Direct mail is more expensive and produces a higher response/higher contribution per response. Personal fundraising by the candidate produces the highest response/contribution per response, but depending on how that’s done can be expensive too (i.e. you may have to fly the guy somewhere to kiss hands and shake babies, etc.).

    I’m not saying the campaign spent its outreach money well. I’m saying that if the campaign raised $400K, it’s not a split as Mike made it between “$100K for Allen Hacker and $300K for nothing.” If the campaign raised $400, it’s a good bet that it SPENT $250K of that $400K RAISING the $400K. $150K is a significant amount of money to spend unwisely, but not as significant as $300K. There’s no need to hype the misspent amount. Regardless of how big it was, it was big enough to bitch about without inflating it.

    Regards,
    Tom Knapp

  43. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Tom,

    What you’re saying about fundraising money being used to do fundraising activities is absolutely right. Probably at least half of the money was spent raising more money.

    However…

    If they raised $250K and used that to pay for fundraising efforts to raise another $150K for the campaign… then they raised a total of $400K. Because the $150K wasn’t used to successfully promote the party or a candidate, then the whole total of the amount was “wasted” money.

    Sort of like if a NASA probe gets to Mars and we lose all contact with it before it can send us much of anything useful back. Maybe the probe itself cost $150 million… but the rocket and launching it might have run another $250 million. We wouldn’t sit around and say: “Well… the rocket actually worked OK… so that money wasn’t really wasted.”

    And I don’t think the campaign was a total failure, but it seems like it was pretty close to it. That’s just my 2 cents on it all.

  44. Kn@ppster Says:

    Austin,

    I don’t disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I’ll take it a little deeper:

    The campaign should have been able to achieve the results it achieved at the polling place for less than $10K in just about any US House district in the country. 5% isn’t really a high bar in a not-especially-competitive race. After that, there’s an increasingly steep uphill grade in dollars per vote, but there’s pretty much a built-in 1-2% base for any LP candidate who campaigns at all, and another 3-7% for any candidate who spends money wisely to get name recognition, Get Out The Vote, etc. in even small amounts.

    There might be some case to be made that non-vote achievements were made, but I’m not buying it much, at least on the positive side. As far as I can tell, the chief non-vote achievement of the campaign was to make it harder for other LP candidates to raise funds. On the Kubby campaign, I’ve already seen two specific types of responses:

    a) “Give you money? After Badnarik and Hacker pissed the LAST contribution I made away for 4% of the vote? Not!” and

    b) “Here’s a small contribution. My wife put the kibosh on large contributions after the Badnarik debacle.”

    That’s a negative non-vote achievement. Maybe there were positive ones—the billboards, whatever—but I haven’t seen any that strike me as worth $400K, $150K, $50K, etc.

    My previous posts were not intended to make light of the fact that money was ill-spent, but rather to put into perspective the AMOUNT that was unwisely spent. That amount was probably a lot less than $400k, or even $300K.

    If the campaign had polled 20%, few people would be bitching and the high fundraising costs would have been considered justified. If the campaign had polled 10%, there would have been some complaints, maybe some justified ones, but it wouldn’t have been considered scandalous by most.

    The difference between 10% and 4.3% is the difference between “lessons learned—we either need a lot more money or we need to figure out a way to lower fundraising overhead for the money we CAN raise” and “what the FUCK?”

    It’s also the difference that opens the floor for questioning the intentions and basic competence of the people who raised/spent $400k to achieve the result, rather than just assuming honest intentions and reasonable competence on their part. At 10%, most people would have said “hey, it was an uphill fight, let’s learn from it.” At 4.3%, a lot more people go from that to thinking the campaign itself was defective, and they’re not unreasonable in thinking so.

    Regards,
    Tom

  45. Joey Dauben Says:

    My theory is that with Ron Paul in the race, more Libertarians will flock to the GOP primaries, especially in NH if he does in fact run.

    The money will be better spent with Ron Paul’s campaign, which, in my theory, maybe the LP had a hand in recruiting him to salvage any sort of credibility they had left over from the Badnarik (emphasis on BAD) campaign.

    Just me though.

    I don’t see Phillies or Kubby establishing any credibility with donors or voters after what L. Ron Hacker did, I just don’t. Unless both are independently wealthy to begin with, they better have signs, shirts, stickers, ads, etc. made and ready BEFORE asking for money.

    Then again, with Bloomberg jumping in as an indy candidate in 2008, the LP factor won’t mean anything anyway…

  46. George Phillies Says:

    Joey,

    If you or anyone else wants a bumper sticker or palm card, just send the campaign (email below) a papermail address telling the campaign where to mail them. For radio ads http://www.phillies2008.com ready now.

    George Phillies

    campaign@phillies2008.com

  47. Meg Says:

    Okay, I have tracked down Stephen Gordon’s disclosure letter, and it mentions that he will still be working for and promoting HoT and LibertyMix. Here are some relevant points:

    I have no control over who advertises at HammerOfTruth.com or LibertyMix.com, although I receive a portion of the proceeds from such advertising. I intend to continue writing for Hammer of
    Truth and promoting the offshoot LibertyMix site while maintaining the terms of the Section 3 of the LNC Policy Manual.

    and

    Stephen Gordon has received financial compensation from Hammer of Truth and is expected to receive future compensation from LibertyMix.

    If something has surfaced since this was written to contradict it, can you please tell me where so that I may check it out.

    However, even if Gordon HAS renounced or otherwise put distance between himself and LibertyMix, he should still be held accountable for the delays and obfuscations, as it was on his word and his good honor that many people donated a lot of money which has thus far been unaccounted for. He still needs to provide answers, and the LP needs to be aware of the scandals in which their employees are involved.

  48. Seth Cohn Says:

    Meg: FYI, while some of that letter’s contents re: SG’s financial/ownership interests are/were accurate (to the best of my knowledge), I can tell you that other portions are no longer accurate (to the best of my knowledge). LibertarianLists.com and the mailing list thereof, for instance, is NOT in the hands of SVD or LibertyMix, and hasn’t been for some time now. So most of Appendix A’s info is incorrect (though I’m sure it was meant to be accurate when written). So take that letter with a large grain of salt: the best laid plans gone awry, etc.

    Obligatory disclosure: I host/webmaster/manage a variety of sites, including LibertarianLists, Phillies2008, BarryHess, PeirceforOhio (defunct), LPAlabama, and others. I formerly hosted HoT, for a few years, but when it got large enough to require larger resources, the site was moved off to other providers.

  49. dan Says:

    I think it is silly how in every hacker letter he magically reduces the debt. He wanted 250k that he didn’t need. He really only needed 50. Oh, wait, he really needed 15. Oh wait, he really just needed the mailing list.

    Allen you are so silly. After listening to that podcast of yours I was glad to know the State of Aescir inherited the mailing list. It is so full of acumen. I like the part where you get taken over by a trans-dimensional being after getting brain damaged as a child. That is awesome.

  50. Allen Hacker Says:

    Dan, Dan, Dan…

    Not a careful reader,
    nor an attentive listener,
    that man.

    Don’t you realize that if you go through life twisting everything you see and hear, all you will have had in the end is a twisted life?

    0

  51. dan Says:

    Wow! Thanks for that nickels worth of advice! Now I feel like I can dedicate my life to the church of hacker. Where do I send the check?

  52. Allen Hacker Says:

    Tom,

    You wrote,

    “I’ve already seen two specific types of responses:
    a) “Give you money? After Badnarik and Hacker pissed the LAST contribution I made away for 4% of the vote? Not!” and….”

    I find this ver disingenuous. After refusing to consider that intensive negative and largely false bolgging against the Badnarik campaign could have had any tangible impact on our fundraising, here you are, “blaming” us for your difficulty.

    Not that I don’t believe that you’re hearing those exact things, but you’re really not hearing anything substantially different from what we started hearing right after Austin posted his first poorly-worded commentary on our expenditures.

    Where were you with all your deep insight then?

    Speaking of which, you have been making a series of pronouncements about Michael’s performance (generally positive, albeit) which don’t hold up in the light of what actually happened.

    Michael ran for president, and is an icon of the party, as might all past presidential candidates be. But you lionize him at your own peril. You don’t have any idea what went on behind closed doors, or what failed to happen out at events and on televised debates when I wasn’t there.

    I’m willing to take a lot of the responsibility for the things that didn’t go right, but I have severe reservations about putting the other half of the unhappy story out into the public eye when it can change nothing and teach nothing.

    Of course, that would be exactly what several of our co-commentors would just love, because if it doesn’t have blood in it, they can’t taste it. But unlike them, I don’t believe I can make myself look better by making somebody else look bad.

    I suppose that what most disappoints me about you is that you consort here with felons and lend an air of legitimacy to the lies, misrepresentations and errant pontifications that pass here for intellignet discussion.

    0

  53. Austin Cassidy Says:

    Allen,

    My analysis of their expenses was poorly worded. ;-)

    I’ll remember that the next time I’m reading a 62 page fundraising manifesto-rant from the Hacker/Badnarik/Whatever mailing list.

    Are you saying now that part of the failure of this campaign was due to Badnarik being a bad candidate? Wow… I think I said that about eight months ago.

    If posts on TPW, Hammer of Truth, or Tom’s Blog happened to scare donors away from the Badnarik campaign… I think we should be credited as having performed a public service. Four percent of the vote on $400,000 is absolutely astonishing!

    You guys couldn’t have won that race if you had a million dollars!

  54. Allen Hacker Says:

    Austin,

    Not exactly.

    And whatever I am saying, it doesn’t leave you blameless.

    Life is complex. The truth is never a single fact.

    0

  55. Austin Cassidy Says:

    If anything written on this blog helped someone decide to hang onto their money or direct it to another campaign, then I’m happy to take the blame for that.

  56. Allen Hacker Says:

    Austin,

    Hold onto that.

    0

  57. Trent Hill Says:

    Allen,

    I believe this entire thread can be summed up in one statement.

    “What the fuck? 400,000 for 4%?.......What the fuck?”

  58. Allen Hacker Says:

    Trent,

    And I believe the quality of your summary is explicit in its language.

    0

  59. Trent Hill Says:

    Did I offend the extraterrestrials Mr. Cruise?

    My apologies.

    Allow me to reword so that you can further your understanding.

    400,000 for 4%. How do you even MANAGE that? Badnarik was an all-star candidate, in an extremely libertarian-conservative district. How could you only garner 4% with all of that money? You spent more money in that one race,than the Constitution Party spends on its entire yearly budget. How is than EVEN feasible? In summary, you are incompetant.

  60. Allen Hacker Says:

    Trent,

    The quality of your attempts at communication is appalling.

    Why would I care what you think?

    0

  61. Trent Hill Says:

    Allen,

    L. Ron Hubbard says you’re crazy.
    Tom Cruise pales in comparison.
    Why don’t you release a detailed budgetary outline for the Badnarik campaign? Volunteer to be audited. This would satisfy libertarian activists and donors,and would provide transparency on the issue.

  62. Rob Says:

    Wow, so Hacker actually spent about $52 PER VOTE, while the Democrat spent about $1 per vote? That’s amazing.

    If there was a Campaigns & Elections magazine Hall of Shame issue, Hacker would be on the front cover.

    To do that poorly, you’d expect the candidate was a convicted child molester or something – and the campaign manager went around and advertised that fact.

  63. Allen Hacker Says:

    Trent,

    You realy know how to make a guy think you’re worth talking to.

    As for your question, “Why…?”—Asked and answered. Read the archives.

    0

  64. Allen Hacker Says:

    Rob,

    Obviously there are other ways to do that. But apparently, your imagination runs only along certain channels.

    0

  65. Rob Says:

    Does anyone know of a Libertarian campaign that actually did worse than the Hacker debacle?

    $400,000 raised, 4% vote, 7000-some-odd votes; that’s gotta be some sort of record.

  66. Allen Hacker Says:

    Rob,

    It concerns me to see you so comfortable there in that void.

    0

  67. Trent Hill Says:

    I’d have to agree Rob. Maybe we could contact Guiness?
    I mean,the idea of an LIBERTARIAN candidate spending 52$ a vote is just….insane.

    Hacker,

    I have read the archives, quite thoroughly. And I, like everyone else who has read ANYTHING about you, still am not convinced.

  68. Allen Hacker Says:

    Trent,

    Don’t posture. If you’ve read the archives, you know why I haven’t posted my analysis yet, and you should know better than to re-ask questions about that which have already been answered more than once.

    Seriously. How is it you presume to know what everyone thinks? You don’t, you know.

    Here’s a little hint. We got contributions in the mail today from more people than all combined on this blog who post against me.

    Little wonder I’m not concerned with your opinion. Your everyone is a tiny closed group.

    What IS the sound of 5 guys echoing nothing among themselves?

    0

  69. Rob Says:

    Seriously, Hacker, can you name ONE Libertatian campaign with worse stats then yours?

    Or maybe I should let one of your many supporters do the spinning… :)

  70. Trent Hill Says:

    OHk. Hacker,

    The fact that people are still donating to get you out of the hole proves nothing. All it means is that well-meaning libertarians are losing their money. I like Badnarik, and im glad he’s being bailed out. However, I hope you dont see a dime.

    Also, nothing in the archives EXPLAINS anything. It is full of excuses.

  71. Trent Hill Says:

    Oh, and 5 people? Austin would probably take offense to that.
    Considering 214 people voted for the Libertarian Poll, I dont see “five” as being a legitimate number.
    If this is an example of how your gross miscalculations could mess up a campaign, it is indeed a good one.

  72. John Brown Says:

    Everything you need to know about Alien Hacker is contained within the first four letters of his last name.

    What is his worth to any campaign?

    0

  73. Allen Hacker Says:

    Illiteracy and innumeracy—so much of you in so few.

    If you can’t discern the message and have to clasp onto a single phrase just so you can manufacture some babble; if you have to dick around with someone’s name because you don’t have anything substantial to say; if you want to scream “apples” over and over when the answer is “oranges”: you will do what you will do.

    Anyway, the fun has run out for now, this thread has slipped into the previous posts section, and I have money to count.

    Until next time, kids.

    0

  74. Trent Hill Says:

    Don’t you mean money to unwisely spend on the behalf of a good candidate?
    Or do you mean waste?

    As for illiteracy. We can read just fine Allen. Can you read your books and explain to us one more time how the dollar-fairy stole Badnarik’s funds?

Leave a Reply