Just adding my $0.02 on some of the topics in this thread:
---The social networking aspects of CFL are available for FREE. Only precinct leaders have to pony up the $35 membership, which will be well worth the voter list information, in particular.
That STILL remains to be seen. Does anyone have that voter list info yet?
---In light of the nominal cost of CFL, I think the demands for accounting of all revenues and expenses, salaries and so forth, are utterly ridiculous. Are we demanding such transparency from Josh, for example? Even if CFL were an association with elected officers, that information would be more customary, but hardly required unless the bylaws called for it. Also, such information would serve the opposition very well. Interested parties can always look at Form 990 after the end of the year and at least see what the big numbers are and who gets paid what.
Nominal cost of C4L? Well, we still don't know anything about C4L finances at all.
We don't need to demand transparency from Josh because this is not a non-profit organization which is constantly soliciting donations.
We have yet to see bylaws.
990's are mysteriously missing.
---The 501(c)(4) exemption is a good pick because (1) educating the public about constitutional government and evaluating legislation as to whether it is Constitutional is indeed educational and does not fall into the category of campaigning; (2) nondisclosure of donors can work to our advantage in protecting the identity of 'angels' who may otherwise take a lot of heat for promoting liberty.
501c4 is good for educating, which was the focus when C4L was started. Now the focus is on politics and these "angels" are helping C4L straddle the line between the function of c3 and c4. The invisibility of the "angels" may also cloak the fact that they might actually be demons.
---I don't understand why it is so feared that CFL will be 'top down'. From what I have seen so far, the national organization provides tools and offers ideas and suggestions about priorities and methods (e.g., good lists to use for recruiting, how to not waste time in canvassing) but does not dictate anything. We are free to form our own legal entities, to create our own flyers and presentations, to raise money and to spend it as we wish, etc. I expect that the market will bubble up the best ideas among the counties, districts, and states.
Well, folks, what say you in response to this?
The PL program was good, should have been expanded. Other than that I've yet to see a tool that benefits anyone in any tangible way. Again, no voter lists for us. We were free to create our own flyers only with the blessing of national if we planned to use the logo. We can only legally raise money once we incorporate at the state level and affiliate with national. Time and again our ideas (such as 10th amendment resolution in VT and visiting sheriffs elsewhere) were poo pooed. In fact, Rothfeld has put together a list of "approved" activities and projects from which we are "free to choose" what we should focus on.
---CFL is about education and political lobbying in support of liberty. When it comes to campaigning, the grassroots has lost nothing in terms if influence and importance in GOTV. If CFL does its job, it will make the grassroots' work easier. In my area, CFL has been formed from the grassroots and I'm sure this is true all over. Furthermore, we understand that campaigning is a separate activity, and have talked about forming our own PAC or 527 for campaigning purposes.
When this was written, yes. But what is it now? C4L hasn't done ANYTHING to help the grassroots here in VT.
I suggest to Josh and Bryan, considering the poor treatment from C4L towards this forum well over a year ago as evidenced in this thread, and the betrayal of the grassroots with this CO debacle that rpf remove the stain of association with C4L by shedding the C4L specific forum.
.
