CFL - FB - Operate efficently and with the grassroots

[Austin]

Sorry, but what does the acronym FB stand for?

Feedback

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Sorry, but what does the acronym FB stand for?

post number please? - if it was my post, it was a typo....

thanks,

-t

 

[JS4Pat]

Feedback

Thanks.
FB = Feedback.
Probably should have figured that one out on my own.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Grassroots is a very subjective term.

I do not see this forum being suitable for CFL without unacceptable levels of moderation for a large segment of our membership. I see no reason why they should not maintain a blog. I defintely feel that OCH is a treasure that I hope can be brought increasingly into play. Patience is a virtue...

The whole "us vs. them" thing has validity. I think there will be sharp edges dividing us until there is a full airing of our strengths/weaknesses, successes/failures, etc... of the presidential campaign. I think we need to recognize and deal with that, but it is a separate issue to getting the CFL to a state where we are comfortable using it as .url for recruits. I believe both issues can be worked on simultaneously, but feel we should recognize the difference and try to keep the issues seperated and the threads focused and organized.

Andrew is one guy. For the second time, I am stating that I have worked with, had preliminary discussions on these issues with, and trust this man to be "on our side". I have not done what I do just to blow smoke up peoples asses and feel we have a good opportunity for progress and healing.

Patience and camraderie are good things

onward and forward

 

[JoshLowry]

We plan on keeping just about everything in-house to encourage our members to participate in our website and grassroots network. I'm sorry, but I don't foresee CampaignforLiberty.com linking to RPF or DP .

Give love, get love.

You've given love to BreakTheMatrix and many other projects.

RonPaulForums.com is a place where you can share and discuss your ideas, but it is still a grassroots project in itself.

This website has given plenty of love in supporting the Campaign For Liberty.

You can reciprocate or you can go outreach somewhere else.

 

[constituent]

You can reciprocate or you can go outreach somewhere else.

i think they call that karma.com


or is it .net?


i forget.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Give love, get love.

You've given love to BreakTheMatrix and many other projects.

RonPaulForums.com is a place where you can share and discuss your ideas, but it is still a grassroots project in itself.

This website has given plenty of love in supporting the Campaign For Liberty.

You can reciprocate or you can go outreach somewhere else.

And this is exactly what the problem will end up being. The cfl making sure to recreate or setup the various grassroots efforts and ideas BUT only as long as the cfl is controlling them.

I see that being an issue THAT will remain constant either way. You want grassroots efforts and ideas but once we give them, they want to make sure that only ON cfl would those "ideas" surface and if not, then STILL not link to outside "grassroots" websites who might already have those ideas IN PLACE.

I do see a point in wanting a forum ON the cfl website so they can regulate and monitor things differently. They odds are wouldn't want as much free speech and random rants and raves that are allowed on this forum AND I personally enjoy the free expression that YOU allow here on RPF's.

If they don't want to support the grassroots efforts, forums and online/offline communities then what is the point of pretending the cfl has anything to do with "Grassroots" at all?

 

[JS4Pat]

What is the difference between what Restore the Republic is doing and what Campaign for Liberty is trying to do?

We have Meetup Groups, Republican Liberty Caucus, The Libertarian Party, The Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, Restore the Republic, Daily Paul, Ron Paul Forums etc.

I am all for the spirit of competition and individuality, but there does come a point where duplication and difficulties in communication make the movement inefficient/ineffective. I would be willing to embrace whatever "THE" vehicle is for advancing our ideas as quickly and as effectively as possible, but not only does it not appear as though one is evolving - it seems as though we are moving farther and farther away from one.

 

[JoshLowry]

And this is exactly what the problem will end up being. The cfl making sure to recreate or setup the various grassroots efforts and ideas BUT only as long as the cfl is controlling them.

I see that being an issue THAT will remain constant either way. You want grassroots efforts and ideas but once we give them, they want to make sure that only ON cfl would those "ideas" surface and if not, then STILL not link to outside "grassroots" websites who might already have those ideas IN PLACE.

I do see a point in wanting a forum ON the cfl website so they can regulate and monitor things differently. They odds are wouldn't want as much free speech and random rants and raves that are allowed on this forum AND I personally enjoy the free expression that YOU allow here on RPF's.

If they don't want to support the grassroots efforts, forums and online/offline communities then what is the point of pretending the cfl has anything to do with "Grassroots" at all?

Well said.

If they want nothing to do with RPF unless it benefits them, then I see no reason to allow them to benefit off of the long volunteer hours that I and so many others have been put into this site over the past 19 months.

Give love, get love.

 

[Andrew Ward]

You've given love to BreakTheMatrix and many other projects.

That was one of our first emails months ago. We don't link to BTM from our website. RPF is not a focused project, it a forum that we do not moderate.

This website has given plenty of love in supporting the Campaign For Liberty.

We recognize that there is a lot of support here. I'm here because we appreciate the strong presence of the freedom movement on these forums. It still would not be wise of us to link to RPF.

The cfl making sure to recreate or setup the various grassroots efforts and ideas BUT only as long as the cfl is controlling them.

The grassroots is made up of individuals. We don't plan on controlling people... If we have the funds and resources to recreate a good idea we will do so in order to advance the movement.

You want grassroots efforts and ideas but once we give them, they want to make sure that only ON cfl would those "ideas" surface and if not, then STILL not link to outside "grassroots" websites who might already have those ideas IN PLACE.

If Henry Kissinger has a good idea we'll "steal" it from him without credit. Otherwise, we try to give credit where credit is due. We get a lot of ideas every day. Many are anonymous. We've linked to grassroots efforts before, see: Question 1 in Massachusetts.

If they don't want to support the grassroots efforts, forums and online/offline communities then what is the point of pretending the cfl has anything to do with "Grassroots" at all?

The grassroots are made up of individuals. Many of them have user accounts at CampaignforLiberty.com

If they want nothing to do with RPF unless it benefits them, then I see no reason to allow them to benefit off of the long volunteer hours that I and so many others have been put into this site over the past 19 months.

Another thread covers why linking to RPF is not in our interest, the interest of RPF, or the movement.

 

[JoshLowry]

That was one of our first emails months ago. We don't link to BTM from our website. RPF is not a focused project, it a forum that we do not moderate.

And? How are we different?

RonPaulForums is not a focused project? You know, we sure have accomplished a hell of lot for not being a project per your definition... Maybe we're disqualified because we don't have a business plan and turn a quarterly profit?

I wasn't aware that the CFL moderates BTM. Is Trevor a paid staff member of the CFL?

If they want nothing to do with RPF unless it benefits them, then I see no reason to allow them to benefit off of the long volunteer hours that I and so many others have been put into this site over the past 19 months.

Another thread covers why linking to RPF is not in our interest, the interest of RPF, or the movement.

So your non-response confirms that you would not link to RPF no matter how much you are here for your and only your benefit?

Too much freedom of speech to link to that website. Is that irony?

 

[Andrew Ward]

And? How are we different?

RonPaulForums is not a focused project? You know, we sure have accomplished a hell of lot for not being a project per your definition... Maybe we're disqualified because we don't have a business plan and turn a quarterly profit?

I wasn't aware that the CFL moderates BTM. Is Trevor a paid staff member of the CFL?

At the time we were looking to highlight a media-oriented institution to our membership. We knew that Dr. Paul thought highly of BTM, so we decided to go with them. And that was months ago. We have not emailed anyone about them since. This was way before John Tate became Executive Director (now President). If he was around then we would not have done it.

(Edit: I apologize, I can't speak for John Tate. I should have said: I don't believe we would have sent an email out about BTM if John Tate was around at that time. My point is that we have much more focus now.)

If they want nothing to do with RPF unless it benefits them, then I see no reason to allow them to benefit off of the long volunteer hours that I and so many others have been put into this site over the past 19 months.

We're trying to bring tools and coordination to activists who want to affect change. Linking to RPF from our website does not help this goal.

So your non-response confirms that you would not link to RPF no matter how much you are here for your and only your benefit?

Too much freedom of speech to link to that website. Is that irony?

People here have questions and concerns about Campaign for Liberty. There's even a sub folder called Campaign for Liberty. I'm here to help and communicate with other liberty-minded people about CFL. Think transparency. I believe my presence here benefits the movement.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Since CFL will not even acknowledge the grassroots exists, perhaps grassroots sites should get together and remove any mention of CFL from our sites as well as removing traffic about CFL.

Especially when you are stealing our ideas and duplicating our projects.

Like Josh said: Give love, get love.

-t

 

[Nate K]

I have a somewhat off-topic question - did Ron Paul appoint John Tate to be president or was it a vote?

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Since CFL will not even acknowledge the grassroots exists, perhaps grassroots sites should get together and remove any mention of CFL from our sites as well as removing traffic about CFL.

Especially when you are stealing our ideas and duplicating our projects.

Like Josh said: Give love, get love.

-t

Main reason why I am building a grassroots meetup social networking site as well. I think the grassroots does things best when let to "run free" and let the actual free market decide which projects and efforts are worth supporting or not.

I know most grassroots ron paul sites would happily link to each other. The meetup style site we are currently building will especially link to rpf's and any other ron paul site that is worth linking to and there are PLENTY of them.

Trevor is running this next cfl money bomb and btm is all over the cfl as well so to say that things will run smoother than his previous attempts surprises me some.

I always assumed the cfl was going to be a grassroots ran project and now it seems 100% top down which bums me out a bit.

I think we need MORE grassroots ideas flowing out here, if they go big then GREAT and if some don't then that is fine also. We just have to keep moving forward with our efforts and goals and stop worrying about single groups doing the work for us.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

That was one of our first emails months ago. We don't link to BTM from our website. RPF is not a focused project, it a forum that we do not moderate.

Most every successful "focused project" was born/carried out/promoted, right here. What we did here over the last 18 months made the campaign. If not for RPFs, the campaign would have been exactly what RP was expecting, a short duration educational campaign. That fact needs to be recognized. CfL, BTM, and people like myself need to all admit that we would not be where we are today without RPFs... I can fully understand the "give love, get love" sentiments.

While I fully understand the need for seperate forums, many of us are justifiably angry at being treated like crazy cousins, especially by those who have abused our trust...

 

[Pete]

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.

---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.

---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.

---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.

---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.

---WRT website linking, typically 501 organizations link only to other 501s, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. I know this because I sell a product that is used by schools and other not-for-profits. A directory of self-nominating liberty-oriented organizations, both commercial and noncommercial, should be OK and we can call this a suggestion for future development.

 

[pacelli]

This was way before John Tate became Executive Director (now President). If he was around then we would not have done it.

(Edit: I apologize, I can't speak for John Tate. I should have said: I don't believe we would have sent an email out about BTM if John Tate was around at that time. My point is that we have much more focus now.)

People here have questions and concerns about Campaign for Liberty. There's even a sub folder called Campaign for Liberty. I'm here to help and communicate with other liberty-minded people about CFL. Think transparency. I believe my presence here benefits the movement.

Thanks for coming. In the interest of transparency, could you please provide a link or list the officers & structure of the Campaign for Liberty. Perhaps officers is an incorrect term, but I'm trying to find a source for where I can see John Tate's title & where he relates to the rest of the Campaign for Liberty staff (if he is president, who is vice president, who is secretary, who is treasurer, et cetera).

Also, why was Ron Paul's name removed from the Campaign for Liberty logo?

Finally, what is Ron Paul's title within the organization? Is he actually a member of the Campaign for Liberty?

 

[dr. hfn]

i don't think the C4L should have a forum, it will hurt the grassroots

 

[Andrew Ward]

I have a somewhat off-topic question - did Ron Paul appoint John Tate to be president or was it a vote?

The Board appointed John Tate.

Most every successful "focused project" was born/carried out/promoted, right here. What we did here over the last 18 months made the campaign. If not for RPFs, the campaign would have been exactly what RP was expecting, a short duration educational campaign. That fact needs to be recognized. CfL, BTM, and people like myself need to all admit that we would not be where we are today without RPFs... I can fully understand the "give love, get love" sentiments.

While I fully understand the need for seperate forums, many of us are justifiably angry at being treated like crazy cousins, especially by those who have abused our trust...

Mike, I don't disagree. We appreciate the generally positive, productive activity and innovative thoughts that come from this forum.

In the interest of transparency, could you please provide a link or list the officers & structure of the Campaign for Liberty.

This is what I have available. A new About section will be more detailed.

John Tate, President. Jesse Benton, VP of Public Relations. Debbie Hopper, VP of Membership. Matthew Hawes, VP of Programs. Deborah Wells, Director of Membership Services. Adam de Angeli, Director of Information Technology. Amanda Lee, Assistant to the President. Andrew Ward, Director of Outreach. Steve Bierfeldt, Director of Development. Matt Holdridge, Director of Marketing. Allison Gibbs, Administrative Assistant.

Also, why was Ron Paul's name removed from the Campaign for Liberty logo?

He's a sitting congressman so there's a problem with having his name associated with the 501c4.

Finally, what is Ron Paul's title within the organization? Is he actually a member of the Campaign for Liberty?

He's an honorary chairman. I'm sure he's a member...

i don't think the C4L should have a forum, it will hurt the grassroots

No, it will help activists coordinate activities. We hope to have a forums soon.