Sounds good Leslie.

-kurt

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Leslie Davis <[address removed]> wrote:

Hi All,

I just now got in after nine hours in the TV studio.

I'm gonna eat, get ready for tomorrow, and respond tomorrow night.

In solidarity,

Leslie

From: Common Kurt

Sent: Tuesday, August 16,[masked]:51 PM

To: [address removed] ; Leslie Davis

Cc: [address removed] ; Gallagher Thomas ; Oliver Steinberg

Subject: Targeting anti Cannabis Law Reform candidates in the next election.

I think that the point of identifying elected officials that are extremely against us is that we can put forth our viable candidates against them specifically. Also, we obviously can't put our fingers into every election, but we could identify a few races as being of great importance. If candidates find out that they will be targeted in the next election if they are blatently against our cause, they will be less likely for them to be vehemently against us. This was Leslie Davis' idea though, so I think that he should be the one defending it. Leslie, if you get this, can you please elaborate?

Pat, can you please explain the concepts of a PAC and a super PAC for me?

-kurt

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 8:16 PM, Pat <[address removed]> wrote:

Without a viable candidate there is no 'vote them out' box on a ballot.  Opposition alone is ineffective in a two-plus party system (actually 2 majors, a viable and a flock of varying  minors) that lacks a 'none of the above' choice.

We don't have that and our 'lever' is education as opposed to support of or opposition to specific candidates, which requires that we setup a PAC to carry out.  

On the other hand, Kurt can set up a committee to run on his own tomorrow, hit the filing deadlines as they come and prepare for a signature collection.... Which is where party affiliation kicks in with support proportional to size.  

Perhaps we should petition NORML HQ to form a Super PAC for the purpose?

  

Pat B

Sent from my iPhone.  

There are many like it, but this one is mine.

On Aug 16, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Common Kurt <[address removed]> wrote:

I think that we should have a multitude of candidates and a way to get the word out to people thinking about running in any party that they have a support system already set up with MN NORML. Bill is already running, himself. I say that we find people like Bill and join along side them.

-kurt

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Randy Quast <[address removed]> wrote:

Should we first identify a viable, qualified candidate? Randy

On Aug 16, 2011, at 7:04 PM, Common Kurt <[address removed]> wrote:

I am willing to help organize people to be flies in the ointment. Oliver Steinberg of the Grassroots Party and Ken Pentel http://www.kenpentel.org/ of the Ecology Democracy Party suggest that by running as a 3rd party, one can steal votes from the major parties and that they will then start to change their own policies when they see that they can gain the 3rd party's voters by adopting the 3rd party candidate's policies. I tend to agree with this philosophy. A full court press is in order though, which includes supporting anyone in any party that is in favor of us. It'd be helpful to know what sort of things we should offer candidates that support us. Would our website be helpful?

-kurt

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:14 PM, W. D. (Bill) Hamm <[address removed]> wrote:

Hello Steve;

Mark Dayton stood and stands solidly against us, I say that as one who supported him early and turned against him after his clear public statement hooking it to his chemical recovery, (I can’t let anyone else have it if I can’t). You need to understand that those Prison Guards in Minnesota are public employee union, so are court stenographers and many others. What I am reffering to is the controling membership of our DFL and why they still find it too easy to stand against us. Until we can become an anoying enough fly in the ointment of both parties we will see no change in our present political environment. That is why I say we must work to be a strong presents in all viable political spheres, we need organized effort in their faces politely or otherwise everywhere we can. We need this power to max next February at caucus time, we need every seat we can take to county conventions and the State conventions to prove our determination to get this done and to have the power to make or break candidate endorsement which can come down to a very few votes. Yes a very small number of us 0.25%, or 1 out of 400 people, and we can control all three major political parties in Minnesota. In more simple numbers, that is 12,500 across Minnesota out of the roughly 3 Million who support us. Yes we can.

Sincerely,

W. D. (Bill) Hamm

218 [masked]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by W. D. (Bill) Hamm ([address removed]) from Twin Cities Cannabis Club.
To learn more about W. D. (Bill) Hamm, visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York [masked] | [address removed]

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version:[masked] / Virus Database: [masked]/3837 - Release Date: 08/16/11 01:34:00

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Kurt ([address removed]) from Twin Cities Cannabis Club.
To learn more about Kurt , visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]