Skip to main content

Update: LNCC actually funded two state candidates, sort of, probably

(Sorry for the absence of links in this post; we're at the beach and I'm using a public computer; besides the links George mentions below are difficult to work anyway.)

After reading my post on the dismal performance of the Libertarian National Congressional Committee, former LP Presidential cnndidate George Phillies did a little more digging. I utilized the FEC summary reports, which showed the $5,000 actually distributed in 2006 as going to Other disbursements rather than Libertarian candidates.

George went back to the original scans of the reports, and tells me that the $5,000 apparently did go to two Libertarian candidates--Hardy Marcia in Vermont and one other whose name he could not find.

So I stand corrected on that detail.

Notwithstanding that, an LNCC that consumes one-third of its contributions in overhead (and what, pray tell, do they have overhead for?) while disbursing less than 25% of the monies collected for candidates--and not even having a candidates' list on the apparently defunct websit--is hardly either (a) an asset or (b) something that anyone in his or her right mind would donate to.

There; Record corrected and still bad.

Update to update: be sure to read the comments and note the relationship of Hardy Marcia to the semi-mysterious M. Carling--apparent mastermind of the LNCC.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Worth pointing out since you didn't, that Hardy is / was, in addition to whatever he was doing in VT, also active on the LNC as an alternate regional rep for the New England region - and is a known associate / partner in corruption of Dan Karlan and M. Carling...

Not saying there was any wrongdoing, but it's one of those things that makes me go "Hmmmm...." (Amazing how often the LNC makes me do that...)

ART

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...