Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:16:16 -0700
From: apfanning@psn.net ("Alan Fanning")
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] FW: [LP2000] FW: Can One Person Bring Down the LP and the Presidential Campaign?
To: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com ("lpaz-discuss")
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
From: "Alan Fanning" <apfanning@psn.net>
Since we are mentioned in this one you might want to take a look.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: lpus.echo@dehnbase.org [mailto:lpus.echo@dehnbase.org] On Behalf
Of Bill Woolsey
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 10:00 AM
To: LP business - presidential
Subject: Re: [LP2000] FW: Can One Person Bring Down the LP and the
Presidential Campaign?
Harry Browne writes:
> He has gone to great lengths to slander Perry Willis, former National
> Director of the LP and now my campaign manager. He paints Perry as a
> money-grubbing con artist. The truth is that Perry has always shown
more
> devotion to the LP than to his own bank account.
Unlike Hornberger's actual letters, Browne puts his
finger on the real problem. The only thing missing is
the mention of Micheal Emerling (or Cloud.)
There are a good number of Libertarians who believe
that Willis and Emerling are business associates and
that their business is to be "money grubbing con men."
As for the "money grubbing" aspect of the matter,
the story is that are in business and they make money
off of libertarians. Their critics claim that their services
to libertarians (fundraising, especially) involve high
overhead.
Some of heir critics claim that libertarians
just happen to be the market they selected. While
one might ask who would be so crazy as to pick such
a narrow market, there is always the hope one one can
get in on the ground floor and then clean up later. Often
in business, things are tough to begin with, but great
wealth follows later. In some business areas, it is
feast or famine. Some times you make good money,
other times you struggle for survival.
Others, however, believe that Emerling and Willis
are sincerely interested in the progress of the libertarian
movement, and especially the Libertarian Party. It is
just that they hope to get rich from it as well. In some
ways, this does suggest an identity of interests.
The "con man" aspect of the argument is that some
claim that Emerling and Willis have a history of raising
money based upon statements that have no connection
to reality.
Some of their critics describe this as fraud. From
their perspective, the Willis/Emerling approach is to
come up with a fundraising hook and the sole concern
is whether it will motivate people to send in money and
so increase the amount they as fundraisers get to keep.
In other words, some claim that this involves a conscious
effort to cheat people of their money to line Willis and
Emerling's pockets.
Others see it differently. The wildly optimistic
statements about what is going to happen are just
"high objectives." The absense of any downer
statements about the probability of these things
really happening is just salesmanship.
Still others may believe that they are just
constantly inclined to wild optimism and float
assorted good ideas that just never come off
because of this reason or that.
When one puts together the more cynical versions
of the "money-grubbing con man" criticism, it amounts
to the notion that Willis and Emerling make dishonest
claims to line their own pockets. They are involved in the
LP because it is full of suckers ready to be fleeced.
If one puts together the less cyncial characterizations,
then we have libertarians who hope to get rich one day
from political consulting (fundraising and the like) from
Libertarians and have at least sometimes been
involved in fundraising efforts where implausible goals
were described as consequnces of spending the funds
or projects were mentioned that unfortunately didn't
work out and a large part of the funds went to overhead.
Anyway, that is what I see is going on. Now,
there is another question of whether there are other
people who should be included as Willis/Emerling
business associates. I've head Jack Dean's
name mentioned in that context, but certainly
not as often as Emerling or Willis.
In Hornberger's attack on Browne and the LP,
a good number of LNC officers and Browne are
implicated in the Emerling/Willis schemes.
Those who take the highly cynical approach
to describing the Willis/Emerling operations appear
to assume that everyone must see things like they
do and so the only reason why anyone would provide
a cover for the scheme's of these "money-grubbing
con men" is because they are getting a cut to
spend on themselves.
In my opinion, the most serious problem with
Hornberger's letter's is outlandish claims along
those lines. Supposedly, Bergland has been
doing things all of these years because his wife
got a "good job" out of the funds raised by the
Browne front of the Willis/Cloud operation in
1996. Browne, apparently, is getting personal
money out of this operation from the sale of his
book. And, of course, Bergland does so as
well. Frankly, I just don't think it adds up.
Perhaps some people assumed that even
those not cited for getting money "must" be getting
a cut elsewhere. Everyone on the LNC? What
about Hornberger's crack about the possible ownership
of Liamworks? It is so unrealistic.
On the other hand, this over-reaching by
Hornberger doesn't put to rest the accusations
regarding the Willis/Emerling money-grubbing con
men issue.
It is possible for someone to get no money
personaly from their efforts, but to still enable
them because it helps achieve one's libertarian
political goals.
This is possible even with the most cynical
interpretations of their motives. Willis and/or
Emerling might be believed to be opportunistic
con men telling blatant lies to libertarians to get
their money, but since a bit of that money is
avaliable to an LP candidate (Browne) or the
Libertarian Party (LNC,) that's OK. The
favored candidacy or national party has more
money than they would otherwise have and they
can do some good with it.
If one takes a more benign interpretation
of the motives here (they would like to get
rich from this, but they do believe in this
Libertarian business) and that high objectives
and good salesmanship aren't the same thing
as fraud, then getting a cut for good purposes
looks even more justifiable.
But that points to the real political issue.
Is the National Libertarian Party going to
_act_ like a front for a direct mail fundraising
operation? Are unrealistic promises (or
whatever you call them) going to be used
to get people to give?
One final point, those who criticize the
Willis/Emerling business association also
point to dark rumours of dirty political
manipulations and character assasination.
Hornberger is bearing the brunt now,
though deservedly to some degree. Like
I said, he overreached and showed excessive
cynicism. (They must all be on the take.)
On the other hand, credible sources described
how Emerling sought to limit Browne's competition
in the 2000 race and that Browne didn't want to
hear about it because Emerling brings in the money.
This was supposedly aimed directly at Hornberger.
People claim to see Emerling's hand in
the split in the Arizona LP in 1995. Remember
the plan for Browne to appear in the Arizona
primary? Great fundraising hook. But the
Arizona LP wouldn't go along with it. And
that problem just never would go away.
Is it because Smith and Suprynowitz supporters--
who take the most extremely cynical view
of Wills/Emerling--are rife in the faction
recongised by the state?
And what about Gene C.? He is a
direct competitor with Emerling and
Willis. Critics have claimed that it
was Willis that got Gene fired as
National Director and then took his
place. Defenders of the firing explained
that Gene thought he could write his
own fundraising letters. (Rather than
hire Willis as a consultant? Hmmm.)
Did Gene misuse a list of names?
Or was there a dirty trick played? Remember,
his direct competitor, Perry Willis, was
national director.
Anyway, I admit that I am not sure
what to think about all of this. I don't believe that
members of the LNC are all "on the take."
I'm inclined to believe that Emerling and
Willis want to make money while promoting
Liberty. I think there is a reason why
some Libertarians see Emerling's hand
behind various things, but I don't believe
his is involved in _all_ of them.
By the way, the Emerling/Cloud
critics include both purists and realists.
The purists claim that their operations
sell out principle to appeal to a broader
market. The realist claim that they
seek to exhilarate a narrow market to
get money now, sacrificing appeal to
the voters who could elect Libertarians
to local office and provide substantial
numbers of votes in informational
efforts.
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees.
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/975/4/_/651528/_/953845889/
Community email addresses:
Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com
Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onelist.com
Web site: www.lpaz.org
Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss